HC Deb 24 February 1969 vol 778 cc1241-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher (Ilkeston)

This is not the first time that I have raised in this House the problems of the Alfreton area, but I sincerely hope that it will be the last time.

I am profoundly grateful that it is the duty of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs to reply to this debate, because there is nobody in the present Government who understands the problems of this area better than he does. He has made a recent visit to the area and he has talked with the people concerned. He has established first name contact with the trade union people and the industrialists, and when I talk to him about the problems of this area I know that I am talking to a person not only who understands but who is a friend in the strict and literal sense of that word.

I have to raise this problem because the decision has been made by the British Steel Corporation to close the Riddings Ironworks. This is an ironworks which has been established for a long time and it is being closed in accordance with the rationalisation measures which the British Steel Corporation has embarked upon.

It is impossible for me on the Floor of the House to challenge these rationalisation measures in detail. I cannot even pose a question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power about the considerations which prompted the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation to order this closure. For that and many other reasons I do not propose at this stage to challenge the decision that was made. The main reason why I do not do so is that negotiations are now proceeding between the trade unions concerned and the British Steel Corporation, and I have learned enough to know that one must never charge in when negotiations are proceeding between employers and trade unionists. I hope my right hon. Friend will take note of that observation in relation to a subsequent debate.

The point about this closure is that it hits an area which has already been very savagely hit by pit closures. Everybody agrees that there must be a restructuring of industry. Everybody knows, moreover, that there must be a progressive closure of enterprises which are no longer economically viable. But I think it is the general consensus of opinion in this House that social considerations must also be considered as well as balance-sheet considerations. In other words, if enterprises are to close for possibly good economic reasons, those persons who have invested their lives in those enterprises must also be considered. It is in this light that I address my hon. Friend tonight.

I submit that this closure, whether justified or not—and whether it is justified is the subject of vigorous argument elsewhere in which I intend to participate strongly—hits an area which has already been too savagely hit by the process of industrial restructuring.

I will give a few figures to illustrate that simple proposition. When I was first elected for the constituency, which includes the Alfreton Urban District, there were many collieries in full production. By the end of March, 1969, there will not be a single colliery in the area employing workers in the area. In other words, an entire industry has contracted to the point of disappearance. I am not whining about this, I am not moaning about it, and I am not leading protest demonstrations, because I fully recognise the problem is not so much one of keeping uneconomic pits in existence as of bringing new industries into the area to absorb the labour liberated by the closure of the pits.

I have said on at least four occasions on the Floor of the House that labour thus liberated is probably the best labour in the country, and I have here a file of testimonials from employers testifying that former mining labour can be trained very easily, and is probably the best labour that is available.

In December, 1968, 1,000 men in the Alfreton Urban District were unemployed, representing 8.2 per cent. of the male employable population. If I may anticipate remarks which may later be made, it is perfectly true that there is an amplitude of labour opportunities for females. In many respects the statistics of unemployment tend not to give the correct picture, because in this area, as in so many others, a distinction must be drawn between opportunities for male and female labour.

My hon. Friend, who has had a close and recent association with the local authorities in the area, must concede that no local authority or group of local organisations could have worked harder to deal with the consequences of pit closures than those in the Alfreton Urban District. They have been down here in deputations to the D.E.A. and to the Board of Trade, and have made their own independent approaches to industrialists, including one spectacular approach on the David Frost programme. No local organisations could have made better efforts to attract industry to this area. This has to some extent been effective, in spite of the fact that Government policy—and I accept this policy—is plainly stated as being one of attracting most industrial development towards the development areas. Taking advantage of the benevolent attitude of the Board of Trade towards the grey areas in the issue of industrial development certificates, the local authority has been able to provide employment for 550 workers. That is not a figure that impresses the House of Commons. When one normally talks in terms of millions that is not a very impressive figure, but in relation to an urban district council or area that has come to the House or Government Departments whining, protesting and raising hell. It has tried very hard to help itself, and its efforts were recognised recently by my hon. Friend who is to reply and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

When one considers the efforts that have been made to attract industry, through deputations here and approaches to industrialists; when one looks at the area as ore that is trying desperately to lift itself up by its bootstraps from the consequences of an industrial restructuring which it never planned and never made, but for which it must suffer the consequences; one can only say, as I say now, that to inflict this latest disaster of the possible redundancy of 400 workers is to inflict too much.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I visited his constituency nearly a year ago, for purposes with which he may not be in complete sympathy, I was told that his constituents were most grateful to him for having obtained an assurance that the Riddings Ironworks was not in jeopardy? This was the assurance given by the previous Minister. Is not what is being done and the way in which it is being done very similar to the disastrous events which surrounded the closing of Millom Ironworks?

Mr. Fletcher

I am grateful for that intervention. As I said at the outset, I do not propose to challenge the closure as such tonight. Having said that. I wish completely to endorse everything the hon. Gentleman has just said. I feel a sense of bitterness and betrayal at the fact that I have to stand here tonight in the face of an assurance given to me nine months ago that these works were not in jeopardy. But for technical reasons I want merely to deal with the consequences of the closure, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs, is to reply to the debate instead of a Minister from the Ministry of Power.

Since it was reported in the Press that I was to have this debate I have had a flood of letters from every organisation in the Alfreton area. There are moving letters from trade unionists and very sympathetic letters from industrialists, but perhaps the most important letters I have received came from religious leaders. The Vicar of Alfreton writes: I went through all this in County Durham at the beginning of my ministry in 1932. It will be indeed disappointing if my ministry draws to a close in Alfreton in the same atmosphere of depression and disillusion. In a sense, the Vicar of Alfreton states very clearly what I am trying to say. The added blow of this recent closure, when considered in relation to the efforts which have been made by the local authority, local industrialists and, if I may venture to say so, even by the local M.P., to attract industry to the area, brings disillusionment and despair to a whole area. Many people spoke to me last weekend of Alfreton as a ghost town. I do not accept that as an accurate description, but it is an indication of the spreading despair that people should use that kind of language.

I accept, as every hon. Member on these benches accepts, that to sentence a man to unemployment is to sentence him to a destruction of the spirit that is even worse than sentencing him to death by the bullet. I think this is so and is generally accepted. What the people in the Alfreton district want to hear tonight from my hon. Friend, who is a friend of theirs—he established that fact in a recent visit; he knows their language; he knows their problems—is that, in spite of this closure, in spite of the previous pit closures, in spite of the closures which will give us in the end an unemployment rate of about 10–12 per cent., he in his Department is working on plans that will bring industry and employment to this afflicted area, because the area asks for nothing more than the opportunity to work.

I have said in the House before, and I repeat it now, that we have the labour, and it is good labour. We have the sites, and they are good sites. This could be a growth area which could set an example to the entire country. All I ask from my hon. Friend tonight is that he and his whole Department are working on plans to achieve this end so that this disastrous closure can in the future be seen only as a sort of pause, a halting mark, a comma, in what is going to be a glorious story of industrial progress.

11.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. T. W. Urwin)

The House has for some time recognised the tireless manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) attempts to resolve the very difficult problems of his constituency through the various avenues which are available to him. We are deeply indebted to him this evening for the constructive manner and the clarity which he has presented his case on behalf of his constituents. It is evident that he has a deep concern for those who elected him as their representative in 1964.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of dealing a little more fully with the employment situation in the Alfreton area than was possible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State within the scope of his reply to my learned Friend's Questions on 10th February. I understand very well the concern felt locally at the news of the likely closure of the ironworks. As my hon. Friend has emphasised, male unemployment in the area has increased very sharply over the past 18 months as a result of the closure of a number of pits.

If the February total of 1,232 men unemployed were to be substantially increased as a result of the closure of the ironworks and the closure of the "A" Winning colliery, the economic situation in the neighbourhood would be serious. I hope, however, to be able to show that any additional unemployment resulting from these closures is likely to be on a much more limited scale than has been suggested.

Dealing first with the ironworks, it is worth noting again that the British Steel Corporation has not announced a final decision to close the ironworks. What it has done is, in accordance with the best practice, to bring the unions and other interests into consultation on the view they have formed that one of the moves necessary to put the steel industry in the area on a proper economic footing is to close Riddings and concentrate production elsewhere. There is no question of closing the ironworks before the end of July this year, and not before the desirability of this course has been confirmed following the consultations to which I refer. I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right in refusing to allow himself to be drawn into this difficult problem at this stage, when consultations are in fact taking place.

Closure of the ironworks does not, however, mean that the whole labour force will be thrown out of work. As part of their overall plan for the area, the Corporation hope to recruit a high proportion—more than three-quarters—of the existing labour force of 356 for employment at their Stanton and Staveley works, which are within travelling distance of Riddings and at which the operating level is to be increased.

I fully recognise the adjustments which the necessity to travel to work will mean in the everyday lives of the men affected. But the works in question are well within the distances which a large part of the population of this country already—and increasingly—travel to work. I understand that the British Steel Corporation for its part, intends to help by making transport: available. It is to be hoped that as many as possible of the men concerned will take the opportunities available to them of continuing in the employment for which they are specially fitted by years of experience. If full advantage is taken of the offer of employment, there is every reason to hope, allowing for normal wastage, that all but a few redundancies can be avoided.

It is very natural for the men affected to ask why the particular plant in the area to be closed should be that at which they work. This is a matter which will no doubt be pursued in the consultations with the unions to which I have referred. As the House knows, however, planning the reorganisation of that part of the steel industry which is under its control is, in the first place, the responsibility of the Corporation. What is involved here is its judgment on how, given the capacity coming into commission at the new mechanised foundry at Holwell, existing production can be most economically organised.

I am also able to give a good deal of reassurance about the effect on the local level of unemployment of closure of the "A" Winning colliery at Blackwall, currently scheduled for the end of next month. In this case also, there is no question of all the men currently employed becoming redundant. The outlook for continued production at this pit has been doubtful for some time, given the approaching exhaustion of reserves and recent unprofitability. In such circumstances, closure is in accordance with the National Coal Board's policy of achieving a streamlined and viable industry able to meet the keen competition that faces it from other forms of energy.

But on the assumption that closure takes place as planned at the end of next month, there will be opportunities for continued employment in the industry for 700 of the existing labour force of 953 at pits nearby where operations continue. While this implies redundancy of about 250 men, a large number of the current labour force are over 55 years of age—more than 100 are over 60—and so will be eligible for payments under the Government's scheme for payments to redundant mineworkers.

I realise, of course, that these men would prefer to continue in the employment in which they have spent their working life. However, the scheme to which I have referred has proved its worth in mitigating effects on mineworkers who, at a late stage in their career, become redundant. "A" Winning colliery is the nearest pit to Alfreton of the remaining pits in the area, but there are a number of other pits within reach. Of these only New Hucknall is in jeopardy at present, but in this case there is as yet no decision about closure.

There are well over 1,700 vacancies in coalmining currently notified to the Department of Employment and Productivity for the East Midlands Planning Region as a whole. While there is none in the Alfreton Employment Exchange area, there are nevertheless 73 vacancies available within reasonable travelling distance. These are, of course, apart from the 700 jobs available for miners becoming redundant at "A" Winning to which I have referred.

What I have said so far is intended to enable the likely effect of these particular closures to be kept in proper perspective. But I am anxious that I should not in the process leave any impression that it is the Government's view that the present level of unemployment, and in particular of male unemployment, in the Alfreton employment exchange area is something simply to be accepted. This is by no means the case. My hon. Friend has indicated that he recognises the serious problems involved in the restructuring of industry and especially as it applies to the coal mining industry. There are many of us, if I may wear my constituency hat for a moment, who represent constituencies and areas which have long felt the impact of the recession in mining, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that we are closely conversant with the many problems which arise when pits are closed.

Certainly I recognise that at 8.7 per cent., the current level of male unemployment, is not only substantially higher than the national average, but also higher than that of the East Midlands Region as a whole and of the neighbouring parts of the Nottingham-Derbyshire coalfield. As I have said, the Alfreton area has suffered greatly since 1967 from the effects of the contraction of the coal industry. Of 1,218 men unemployed in December, 1968—the last count made by the D.E.P. for which an occupational analysis was made—802, two-thirds, were men last employed in coalmining.

For those who are suitable for training for other employment there are excellent facilities within daily travel distance at the Government training centre at Long Eaton. Analysis of the unemployment register, however, shows that a very high proportion of unemployed mine-workers on it are over 55 years of age, or disabled. While I fully recognise that men over 55 who are able to work would prefer to remain in employment, the Government's scheme considerably helps the older redundant mineworker who is unable to find new employment.

My hon. Friend, who has made commendable efforts to improve the difficult situation in his constituency, referred to the visit which I made to the area last summer when I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting many local authority representatives. I was deeply impressed by the willingness of local authorities to make their contribution to the creation of new employment opportunities. In this connection, Alfreton Urban District Council is entitled to its share of the credit for the resource it has shown in taking steps to meet the need for new job opportunities locally by developing its own industrial estate at Cotes Park. Local initiative of this kind makes a vital contribution towards improving the industrial prospects of an area, and is most welcome.

I realise that there is some disappointment that, even with the sympathetic cooperation of the Board of Trade in the granting of i.d.c.s. for suitable projects, only part of the space available on the council's estate has so far been taken up, but I may mention that those firms which have already taken sites provide an interesting and useful diversity of employment which is so badly needed in an area of this kind. I am sure that it is only a matter of time until this enterprise, designed to improve the attractions of Alfreton for industry, produces the desired results.

As to what action can be taken by the Government; assurances have already been given by the Board of Trade that the attention of industrialists with suitable projects for expansion will be drawn to areas such as Alfreton affected by colliery closures and that applications for industrial development certificates will be viewed sympathetically. These assurances stand unchanged. It has been suggested from time to time that some form of Government assistance should be provided for Alfreton and similar areas.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Hunt Committee has made an examination of these areas—and almost the whole of my hon. Friend's area is relevant—which are now known as intermediate areas. The Hunt Committee has completed its report and it is expected to be published in six to eight weeks. This is clearly not the moment to pronounce one way or another on the claims of Alfreton, or of any other area with a high level of unemployment, for Government assistance. But it is worth noting at this stage that the employment situation of the Alfreton employment exchange area, black as it seems when viewed in isolation, is in many respects more promising than that of the development areas as a whole. Its location alone gives it considerable advantage—close to the M.l and main railway lines and on the line of traffic between North-East and South-West England. This, combined with its proximity to areas within reasonable travel-to-work distance which, in the view of the Regional Economic Planning Council——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.