§ 46. Mr. Eyreasked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what study he has made of the extent to which the decline in the number of jobs in Birmingham is due to the Government's economic policies, including restrictions on the development of new and expanding industries in the city; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin)My right hon. Friend is aware of the reduction in the estimated number of employees in Birmingham between mid-1966 and mid-1967. Figures for 1968 are not yet available. One factor in this has been the general economic situation and its effects on labour demand. There are restrictions on industrial building in Birmingham but industrial development certificates covering some 3¼ million square feet were issued there between 1964 and 1967.
§ Mr. EyreIs the Minister aware that everyone concerned in industry in Birmingham was very deeply disturbed by the 40,000 fall in the working population to which he referred, and that there is a strong belief that the Government restrictions on new and expanding industries threaten future prosperity in Birmingham? Will the hon. Gentleman bear this very much in mind, because it is the denial of the new science-based industries that concerns everyone in this area?
§ Mr. UrwinWe are fully aware of the situation in Birmingham. It is true that perhaps Birmingham has suffered just a little more than any other town of comparable size outside the development areas as a result of the situation which has developed. But the hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the necessity strictly to apply the i.d.c. policy, which is one of the most important weapons in the armoury of Government to re-locate industry in the development areas in order to remove the imbalance that exists between those regions and the more prosperous ones.
§ Mr. Geoffrey LloydHas the hon. Gentleman taken note of the increasing anxiety expressed by the responsible industrial leaders in the Midlands, including the Regional Economic Council, upon this very point, that the Midlands is now being deprived of its characteristic vitality in the attraction of firms?
§ Mr. UrwinI can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have taken note of the comments that have been made. It was only a few weeks ago that I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of industry and the C.B.I. in Birmingham to discuss these very delicate and complex questions.
§ Mr. BarnettIs it not a fact that it is Government policy to bring about a decline in jobs in the Birmingham area and an increase in the number of jobs in the grey areas of Lancashire and the development areas?
§ Mr. UrwinMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. The anxiety expressed by my hon. Friends earlier this afternoon in relation to the difficulties of the development areas is perfectly justified. So long as such a situation exists, and so long as we retain in our vocabulary the term "development areas", the present policies are seen by this side of the House to be absolutely right.
§ Mr. SpeedIs the hon. Gentleman aware that in parts of Warwickshire only a few miles from Birmingham unemployment has for a number of months been running at the rate of 5 per cent., and that with the rationalisation in the motor and electrical industries the situation throughout the whole of the Midlands can only get worse?
§ Mr. UrwinThe hon. Gentleman is perhaps being a little too pessimistic. Here again we have to face the questiton of balance and the absolute necessity to create greater balance, prosperity and economic viability throughout the country and not just in the more populous and more prosperous areas.
§ Miss HerbisonIs my hon. Friend aware that many development areas have had far higher than 5 per cent. unemployment for many years, not just for a few months? Will the Government be adamant in sticking to their policy for bringing more and more worth-while work to the development areas?
§ Mr. UrwinI take full note of what my right hon. Friend says. The answer is a very emphatic "Yes".