HC Deb 03 March 1970 vol 797 cc362-82

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

8.11 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I suppose I am in a position in which backbenchers delight. Instead of having to compress my thoughts into a bare 15 minutes with the Minister's pleasure, I might even have 18 or perhaps 20 minutes.

My subject concerns the parlous economic situation on the north bank of the Humber, which is causing anxiety in the City of Kingston upon Hull and adjoining centres such as Hessle and Beverley.

I should like to begin by referring to the B.B.C. programme about the city of Kingston upon Hull a week or two ago, which caused a furore of anger and, indeed, agony, both official and unofficial, in the city.

As the Minister knows, people in Hull work hard, and of course, play hard. We have some good football teams. But the B.B.C. gave far too much of the cloth-cap image of hard swearing and slum housing down at the fish dock. Unfair, unkind and inaccurate is what we thought.

The country's third port and tenth city has fine buildings and beautiful parks. We have our municipal telephone exchange, with cheap calls which the Minister knows about. It has a modern magnificent hospital and a university.

Nevertheless, the B.B.C. highlighted two fundamental handicaps which are imposed upon us by the chill facts of economic geography. Hull and its efficient modern port are isolated and difficult of access because of a totally inadequate communications system. The population is hard working at wage levels below the national average, with fewer chances of getting new, better paid, or skilled jobs in our society. These are the inexorable facts which stand out start in the statistics of employment and employment opportunities. Last month we had a total of 7,378 unemployed, and only 1,337 unfilled vacancies. Therefore, Hull and district has 10 or 12 men for each unfilled vacancy.

I asked the Prime Minister today whether he would visit Hull. It is a fact, which my right hon. Friend well knows, that in Hull and district the unemployment statistics are marginally higher than Merseyside, which is a development area. These are the clear facts in our statistics of unemployment. There is no doubt that the economic seesaw is, and has been, slowly but surely tilting against us since 1966—four years. Our position is far more serious than the vaunted or famed Humber feasibility study unit thought when it looked at our estauary and its activities a short time ago.

To get better access into the city demands an east-west motorway from the A.1 to Gilbersdyke, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who has just come in, at the western exit or entry. We also want the Humber Bridge to link the two banks of the estuary. I should like to take a passing swipe at the Maud Commission—and indeed, perhaps the Government—for recommending that North and South Humberside should be two separate local government units. What other estuary is in this position? Tees, Tyne, Clyde, Mersey? Not one. My experience of history, particularly political history, is that waterways never divide. They unite valleys.

Concerning rail communication, I should like to quote a former Minister of State who, exactly two years ago, said: A freightliner service to London with one train per day was inaugurated in January, 1968, and its operation has already proved successful. The proposed services to Newcastle, Glasgow and Birmingham should be opened as soon as possible. Traffic between the docks in the east and the freightliner terminal in the west is bound to increase, and, as has been previously pointed out, improved road links between the two by the proposed high level bridge over the River Hull and the South Docks road are vital. I have spoken to footplate men and others in the transport industry. I have a memo from A.S.L.E.F., which says: Due to the loss of timber traffic at the docks there are now wide open spaces where a freightliner depot could have been installed in a strategic position to service both Alexandra and King George docks, instead of having to traverse the city from east to west. We do not understand why this depot was put west of Hull when it should have been placed in the docks on the east, so that the containers and any other goods could be picked up at once and taken away. The men on the footplate are puzzled why this kind of planning goes on.

Funny things happen in Hull when the B.R.B. begins to move into action. It closes rail lines. The most efficient depot in eastern England, the locomotive depot at Dairycoates, has work taken away to Sheffield and similar spots in west Yorkshire. The sword of Damocles is still poised over us. There is talk—and the unions are very worried about it—of the divisional headquarters being moved from Hull to Doncaster. Indeed, we sometimes feel like Mahomet's coffin —poised between heaven and hell.

But the most ludicrous thing of all is the fabulous old No. 7 warehouse. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) recently asked questions about this warehouse which stands in the path of this east-west road linking the two halves of Hull over the River Hull. This building will fall down when the contractors are driving their road past Myton Gate and over the River Hull into the King Geore V, the Queen Elizabeth and other docks on the east side. It is monstrous to find this ancient relic of the mid-19th century, which is falling down, along with lock gates and lock walls between the Princes Dock and the Humber Dock, listed for preservation by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I am certain that this has been done by some anonymous inspector, most likely influenced by the Georgian Society and the preservationists, if not egged on, perhaps, by the chairman, who is the Tory leader of the city council. The city engineer and many others qualified, like the Docks Board and others, would have this down if allowed—because it stands in the way of what we believe to be the best development of the city.

I hope that the Minister of State will knock some heads together in the Ministries of Transport and Housing, which I understand now go in tandem under a supremo, the distinguished right hon. Member for the south bank constituency of Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). We hope that we shall get some attention and, indeed, some action, although sometimes one is a little worried about the time that it takes to get things done.

I believe that our unemployment statistics would be worse if we took into account distant migration. It is a most disturbing thing that our young people cannot find fit work inside the city and often go a long way away. This is not the usual business of younger executives with cars and better salaries living outside the city in adjoining constituencies: this is distant migration which has not come back to us. The city population is declining in absolute terms. What is disturbing is that our basic industries—fishing is the most obvious case—are also declining in numbers and offering fewer jobs. No city, whatever its past, and however tough it is, can afford to lose this youthful and vigorous element. It leads to a marked social imbalance, as is happening in our city at the moment.

North Humberside, a deep water port with space to expand, is not being exploited to its full potential. The Government keep telling us that there is no substitute for self-help; but no local authority can finance the infrastructure which is so vital to it out of its own moneys. An example is the Humber Bridge. Without Government aid for this, our finances in the city will be difficult. The business community feels that the economy is stagnating. So, should we qualify for development area status? As I said, our unemployment is slightly higher than Merseyside's.

The Local Employment Act, for which we are very grateful, will come into force this weekend. The Minister of State may tell us that the intermediate area incentives for which we then qualify will create about 1,600 jobs, perhaps more, we hope, in our whole area over the next four years. These will be mainly for men. We have few jobs for men and plenty for women, whereas the south bank has plenty of jobs for men and few for women. This is another argument for the Humber Bridge—that these men and women could cross and thus help to balance the two economies.

I would compliment at least two well known firms in my constituency which are expanding against the tide and will benefit by these intermediate area incentives of which the Minister will tell us. They are T. J. Smith and Nephew, a very fine pharmaceuticals firm, and J. Shiphams, a copper firm.

Can I ask the Minister what further applications for i.d.c.s are in the pipeline? Why cannot we have Government-built factories? By the end of the week we shall have our new intermediate area status. Under the 1944 Act, the Labour council purchased some 300 acres cheaply for long-term industrial investment. This could be a gold mine for the city as a Government trading estate.

What about help being given with a few government offices, such as we see in Bootle, that famous "Whitehall of the North", as it was described the other day? We should qualify. We have a fine hinterland with some beautiful hills behind, and we have the sea coast. Humberside is a beautiful place, particularly the north bank. I asked the Minister for the Civil Service on 23rd February about Government offices coming to, Hull, and he said that Hull would be considered along with other areas. I hope that the Minister will think more deeply than that about the question.

I once said in this Chamber on a similar occasion, "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." I hope that we shall see some action and will feel a bit happier on North Humberside in the coming months.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on raising this important subject and thank him for offering me a few moments of his time, which would normally have been restricted with the Minister to half an hour. Since we have got on the Adjournment much earlier than was expected, I might speak rather wider than I had originally intended. I recognise that the Minister has had no notice of what I want to say: indeed, many of the matters which I intend to raise, about communications, do not concern him directly.

The hon. Member said that Hull suffers a fairly high level of unemployment and has suffered it for some years. As a grey area it will now get some assistance. We hope that this will be enough, but I believe that the Minister must keep this continuously under review.

I have two industrial matters to refer to First, shipbuilding firms in Hull are all reasonably small, and the same applies in Hessle, in my constituency, next door. But they have a very good export record The Minister will know that they are worried about the assistance given to similar firms in development area, which makes it very difficult for them to compete in the export market. I recognise that there is a strong case for attracting firms into a development area, but I know that it is not the Government's intention to create this sort of competition. This is a very difficult question, but the Board of Trade has been reviewing this matter for a long time, and I hope we may be able to resolve it in some way. What is really important is to encourage British firms exporting overseas, especially those which have an established market.

The other issue is the question of effluent disposal. In its wisdom, over the years, the House has passed various pieces of legislation, which we all support in theory, to ensure clean rivers. But what the House has not done to any real degree is calculate the cost of this legislation or to create priorities. I believe that the law today would enable the Humber Estuary to be made a clean estuary—in other words, that firms would be prohibited from discharging their effluent into the estuary. This has not been enforced. If it were, it might create chaos, would certainly cost a great deal, and would put many firms out of business.

This is a matter of importance and I hope the Government will decide on planned priorities, starting with non-tidal rivers and then dealing with tidal rivers and estuaries. This affects Beverley in my constituency, where there is an important tannery in this county town. It is protected by a perpetual agreement and, therefore, has its effluent treated by the local borough council at a nominal cost. The firm has offered a considerable increase voluntarily to the council. Nevertheless, because this problem of sewage disposal has been neglected over the years, and because of the need to dispose of trade effluent, the town will be faced with a scheme costing 1½ million, which is an enormous sum for a relatively small town.

It has occurred to people who have studied this problem that the proposed scheme might be rather lavish for the scale of the problem. It has been suggested, for example, that if there had been more co-operation among the council, the Government and firm an equally effective but less costly scheme might have been effected to the benefit of the ratepayers, industry and, indirectly, the Government. This problem is still under discussion, and it illustrates a difficulty which should be faced on a national level.

A committee is examining the whole question of sewage and effluent disposal. I hope that it will come up with a national solution because the problem can be tackled only on a national basis. It is not fair to expect a small town to produce an expensive scheme simply because it happens to contain industries which need special facilities for treating effluent.

The most important problem for the Humberside is the question of communications. Given a good port with good water and power facilities and a good hinterland, all of which exist to varying degrees in Northern Humberside, what is basically required to attract industry is good communications.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the surprise that was caused locally by the recent announcement, given in answer to a Parliamentary Question from me, that the two new motorways, the trans-Pennine highway and the extension of the M.1, will not go right into the city of Kingston upon Hull. They are to stop 10 or 15 miles to the west. This seems to be spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.

If we are to construct great motorways from Liverpool to Hull, we might as well finish the job and bring them right into the City. Perhaps the Minister has carried out traffic surveys and will say, as a result, that present traffic demands do not warrant these motorways going through to the city. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West pointed out the importance of the Humber Bridge, and since the Government have pledged that the bridge will be built—hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall the original pledge given during a certain by-election—and although the Labour Party will not be in office when the bridge comes to be built, it is obvious that the bridge will attract a great deal of traffic which will have to be funnelled off to the north and west.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I agree with the general argument being adduced by the hon. Gentleman. Is his party absolutely committed to the building of a Humber bridge?

Mr. Wall

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of the biggest mistakes a politician can make is to commit himself before seeing the books. I have no doubt that when we come to see the books we shall get a shock. Naturally, the whole matter will have to be considered at that time.

It would be foolish for us to follow the example of the Labour Party and, for example, put a ceiling on defence expenditure, such as they have done. That action has got hon. Gentlemen opposite into a lot of trouble in the last five years, not to speak of risking the security of the nation. I must not pursue that tonight, particularly since we shall be debating the matter tomorrow.

A Humber bridge is needed, and it is the Government's intention to prepare the way for it to be built. I hope that, whatever party is in power, the bridge will soon be completed. But it is obviously necessary to ensure adequate access roads and escape routes for the additional traffic that the bridge will generate.

Some of the traffic going over the Humber bridge will want to go north towards York and the Tyne. As things stand, it will have to go through country roads, through Beverley, Driffield and other places in that direction. If we allow 50-ton container lorries to rumble through our countryside roads, those roads will be broken up even faster than they are being smashed by the present volume of traffic.

It is important, therefore, for us to proceed as rapidly as possible with a new Hull-Beverley trunk road. This road was first discussed and planned in 1927. In other words, it was agreed 40 years ago that we needed a new trunk road between Hull and Beverley. Only a few days ago the Minister informed me and the East Riding County Council that he was now prepared to authorise the building of a single carriageway from Hull to Beverley to be combined with the south-west bypass to Beverley. In other words, the Minister is offering the bait of saying, "If you accept a single carriageway, you will probably get it soon".

My initial reaction to his offer was that after 40 years we should have a proper bypass with a double carriageway as quickly as possible, particularly as famous buildings like the Minster in Beverely are being seriously endangered by the volume of traffic passing through the town.

Having had a chance to review the Minister's remarks and having consulted local opinion, I believe that there is something in his offer of a single carriageway—on the basis that half of what we want will be completed twice as fast—and this is acceptable. I hope that it will be borne in mind that this single carriageway is needed extremely quickly. Unless the preparatory work starts within the next year, I doubt whether the road will be completed in time to take additional traffic from the Humber bridge, if the bridge is completed on schedule. The road is badly needed with or without the bridge.

Good communications is the key to the development of Humberside. Another key is the Humber bridge itself. I have always been worried at the thought of Humberside developing as two separate regions, the old one in the north and the new one in the south. This would be disastrous to both the north and south. Only by constructing a Humber bridge shall we create a Humberside which can be developed as one.

I congratulate the Minister on saving the Hull-Scarborough railway line, and, although I gather that he is paying a great amount of money to do this—I do not know why it should cost so much—I am pleased that it is being kept open. I also congratulate him on licensing air traffic from Brough now that Leconfield has been abandoned by the civil operator. Air traffic is vital these days, and I hope that the Government are thinking in terms of a reasonably sized airfield for the future. I do not urge them to construct an international airport, but it should be a good feeder airfield and the Goole area would seem ideally placed for this purpose. Obviously, Brough will not be suitable for anything but small aircraft because of the big chimneys which have been constructed in that vicinity. Suffice it to hope that the Government are thinking in terms of the East Riding having a good feeder airfield for the 'seventies and' eighties.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and to the Minister of State for my late arrival in this debate. Like other hon. Members, I thought that we should not be debating this matter until about 10 o'clock. I was attending a meeting elsewhere but I felt that there was no better reason for dragging myself away from it than that I should take part in this debate on questions affecting my constituents and Humberside generally.

It would be wrong if we did not stress, as has been stressed by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the real problems which face our area. A creeping rise in unemployment is causing us considerable alarm. We are not a development area, and we do not usually have factories suddenly closing, but these things are happening here and there. This is a cause for concern. Although we have not the problems of development districts, we do have problems.

It is absolutely right that people in Hull should realise the significance of what is being done by giving Hull an intermediate status. This means not that we have the problems of the development areas but that the Government have recognised that steps must be taken early to prevent the area having such problems. If the party opposite had taken such steps when hon. Members opposite realised what would happen to the coal industry and other industries, we should not be in this position now. What my right hon. Friends have done is absolutely right, and it is particularly important for Hull.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, it is important, having got intermediate status, that the people of the area should see that the Government are prepared to take an active interest in Hull. I join with my hon. Friend in urging the Government to look at plans for Government-sponsored factories, and perhaps industries, for North Humberside and the whole area. The sort of fillip which a Government factory could give to an area such as ours would show that the Government have expectations and hopes. It would encourage local industry to expand and develop on Humberside.

In some ways local industry is perhaps the key to all this. In a Parliamentary answer today it was shown how local industry can apply for I.D.C.s. A letter to Hull M.P.s has shown that we could expect 1,600 new jobs over the next four weeks. This is splendid news, and we want to see this encouraged. We want not intermediate status or development status but a situation in which the Government could regard us as they regard the South-East and not need to give I.D.C.s because the area would then be better off than other areas. We have a long way to go before that situation comes about. Therefore we want advance factories in our area.

We have had a disappointment. One of the most important decisions which could and must be rectified is that Hull has not a polytechnic in its colleges for advanced education. In my constituency there is the Regional College of Art and Architecture, the College of Commerce and the College of Architecture. Soon we are to steal from Kingston upon Hull, West the Nautical College. After all, my hon. Friend now has in his constituency the infirmary which was in mine. On the college campus in terms of organisation, teaching ability and staff we have a fine record. We have every right to claim that we should be granted polytechnic status.

I hope the Minister of State will say that he will urge on the Secretary of State for Education and Science that in the next list of proposed polytechnics Hull will be included because there is a scarcity of polytechnics on the East coast. If we consider Middlesbrough as being on the East coast, we can say that right down to East Anglia there is no polytechnic. Hull is the obvious place for one to be established, not only for the East Riding but also for the south bank of Humberside. As a former teacher in the local college of commerce, I had students coming from as far away as the West Riding. A polytechnic could raise the morale of staffs in those colleges and the status of Hull in the educational and industrial world. It could do an enormous amount of valuable work for industry and the people generally.

We must look at the developments that have come to Hull. Earlier today I said that the Government had set the fishing industry on its feet. The Government, through the I.R.C., have established a new management and company structure for the industry, which will go a long way to improve the ramshackle 19th century higgledy-piggledy organisation. The Government established a minimum price system for the importation of frozen fillets from E.F.T.A. countries; they have introduced legislation to improve the working conditions of the men in the industry. Today we had a most important debate upon a very important Bill. This is wrongly regarded as our primary industry. We now have a diversification of industry, for which we can thank the Government.

There has been considerable investment in freight-liner services, with roll-on roll-off facilities. We had the Queen visiting us last year to open the new extension to the King George Dock, now called the Queen Elizabeth Dock. A considerable amount of money has been pumped into the north bank of the Humber, recognising its importance to the country. Discussions are taking place about the Humber Bridge, and on this subject people in Hull will note carefully that the hon. Member for Haltemprice could not say that if his party was returned to power the Conservatives would pledge themselves to build a Humber Bridge.

Mr. Wall

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I do not speak on behalf of the Opposition on this subject. All I would say is that my party is much more likely to build the bridge than the present Government are.

Mr. McNamara

They must first get office, and if they keep shilly-shallying on issues like this they never will get office. When the hon. Gentleman brings in red herrings, talking about troops East of Suez, he is off the point. The only thing that matters here is that if people have something to sell they will sell it and if we want to buy it we will buy it, and troops East of Suez have nothing to do with that. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to introduce these topics into a debate about our county.

In the 1964 election the only one of the four Hull M.P.s who mentioned the importance of the Humber Bridge was my predecessor, the late Henry Solomon. We have had no firm undertaking from the Tory Party that it will build the bridge if it is returned to power. When the Leader of the Opposition came to Humberside, as President of the Board of Trade, the only stops he pulled out were in the organ of Beverley Minster. We never saw any benefit from his visit. The people of Hull have to realise that their council is beating its breast about employment prospects. Yet when the Tories were in power they did not do a thing for us.

I join in the disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that in publishing their report and their proposals on Maud the Government did not propose the unification of the north and south banks. With the creation of the authorities, with the tremendous reorganisation in the various services, and with the time scale of the bridge from 1972–76, all the authorities on both banks could be working together for the creation of a unitary authority with the opening of the bridge.

We should then have the benefits of communication between both banks, Which would be tremendously important, and the benefits which each bank could give to the other in terms of job opportunity and the advanced and highly sophisticated social and educational services which the Labour Council in Hull has created. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, who I am glad to see is now with us, to think again on this question.

In many ways much of the impetus must come locally. The Government can do much. They can give us intermediate status. They can push capital into the publicly-owned industries, as they have done. But basically the local authority and the people in the area must themselves endeavour to broadcast the advantages of industry coming to Hull.

There are many great advantages. Hull is situated in very beautiful countryside—the Wolds of Yorkshire. Close at hand are very attractive holiday resorts. Thanks to this Government, there is a good train line to Filey and Scarborough. There are very good education facilities. There are very beautiful facilities and buildings in the area. We have a council which is concerned with our local theatre. The new voluntary organisation is successfully running our art centre in my division. We have a university. We have all the attributes which many cities want to have.

Despite all the efforts which have been made in Hull in the past, we can still do more. Coupled with what the Government have done, we can do much to create our own salvation. Unemployment is our immediate and main concern. Despite some of the bad publicity our city has had recently, by selling its advantages and showing what a unique position it holds we could do much from within our own county, in partnership with the Government, to overcome many of the evils.

8.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. Eric Varley)

This has been a short and useful debate on the problems of an area with which I am already well acquainted, not only through the Ministry of Technology regional office, but also through the effective advocacy of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).

Also, I get very able assistance in these matters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning who is here with us on the Front Bench. I know that he has extensive knowledge of this area. We co-operate very closely on the question of regional industrial development.

The House has been giving the regions a good deal of attention in recent months. We have had a number of constructive debates, and only last Thursday the new Local Employment Act received the Royal Assent. When it comes into force this week we shall be able to extend assistance to a number of new areas, North Humberside amongst them, where the rate of economic development ought now to gather greater impetus. It is right that we should take time to air the problems of the regions. Planning for the best use of regional resources and for the narowing of regional disparities is an important part of management of the national economy. But our success in establishing the economies of the less prosperous areas on a sounder footing depends in the long run on the achievement of a sound basis for economic growth in the national economy, national economic prosperity, and, of course, on a stable surplus on our balance of payments.

I thought that the hon. Member for Haltemprice injected a party note when he said earlier in the debate that the Opposition, if they ever got a chance, would want to see the books. Well, in 1964 we got an opportunity to see the books. They were in a pretty disastrous state at that time, and if the Opposition should ever have an opportunity to look at the books within the next 12 months they will find them in a much sounder and healtheir state than they were when we took over.

Now that we have moved into surplus it would be very easy to succumb to the temptation to relax too soon some of the rigorous and often painful measures we have had to take. These measures can now be seen to be working, but we must ensure that our overall economic strength brings with it greater strength for all areas and regions in the country. We must make sure that we build firmly on our economic strength so that long-term employment prospects remain sound; and the achievement of a sound basis for steady growth must take first priority. The Government have shown over the last five years that they attach very great importance to correcting regional disparities and to helping each region to make full use of its productive resources. We have developed a wide and flexible range of incentives to help the less prosperous areas to overcome their structural and economic weaknesses. We have recognised that the scale of the problems of different areas varies and calls for different levels of assistance; and with the vastly increased flow of information at our disposal we can take account of such factors as population change and employment trends, as well as unemployment, in assessing these needs. We are achieving a growing sophistication in the diagnosis of regional ills, and their treatment, and the long-term prognosis is good.

I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West said tonight. North Humberside is an important national asset. It is a major port and a major community, and, along with South Humberside, its potential as a major national growth area cannot be disputed. It can accommodate population and industry to a very great extent.

My hon. Friend suggested that the Merseyside problem was not quite as bad as the Hull problem. I accept that unemployment on Merseyside is at present marginally lower than in the Hull area, although this is not true of any other development area. Nevertheless, there has been a continuing loss of jobs on Merseyside, notably in the heavy electrical industry and shipbuilding, over the last 12 months. As a consequence unemployment on Merseyside has increased and the problems there appear to us to be very deep-seated. Development area status will have to continue for Merseyside.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West also mentioned the question of British Railways' rationalisation proposals and the move of the divisional office to Doncaster. I know that discussions are taking place between the Railways Board and trade unions and that my hon. Friends are also in touch with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on this particular point. I understand that they are to see him soon and I know they will not expect me to go into detail on that. My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of migration. This is one of the factors that led us to designate North Humberside as an intermediate area.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice talked about effluent disposal. I cannot give him an authoritative answer now on that, but I have listened to him about the subject before at a private meeting and I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend and convey to him the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned airport facilities for Humberside. The whole question of airports for Humberside will need to be considered in the long term in the light of decisions about expansion on Humberside. There are a number of alternatives. All of them will depend in the long run on the commercial prospects of civil air services. The Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council is concerned that Humberside should not lose its air services and has made its views known to the Air Transport Licensing Board and the Government. A proposal for a new intercontinental terminal by 1980 is to be kept under review in the light of the developing air transport situation. Meantime, the local authorities are earmarking a possible site in the Goole area against this contingency. If this materialises, it will be readily accessible to North Humberside.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised the question of a possible Government factory for Humberside and I will return to that later because we are considering something along these lines. He also referred to the question of a polytechnic. I know he realises that this is not within my responsibility but here, too, I will let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and how strongly he feels. My hon. Friend also paid proper tribute to the Government for their support of the fishing industry, and I very much appreciated it.

Last year, the Government, following the publication of the Hunt Report, announced their intention to designate North Humberside as an intermediate area. This decision was taken after very careful consideration of the area's circumstances and against two serious constraints. The first was that the problems of the development areas were generally much more severe than any other part of the country and that they should retain a substantial margin of preference in assistance to industry. The second was that no substantial additional financial resources could be made available at this time.

North Humberside will now have available grants at 25 per cent. for factory building, Government-built factories and the full range of development area training grants and other training assistance, together with assistance for the transfer of key workers. As I have said, my hon. Friend mentioned the question of a Government factory. We are drawing up what we consider to be a modest programme of advance factories for intermediate areas and the needs of the Hull area will certainly be borne in mind, together with the representations my hon. Friend has made tonight.

Industrial development certificates are now issued freely on the same basis as in development areas. In addition, a capital grant of 75 per cent. is available to local authorities for the clearance of derelict land. Quite apart from this direct assistance, we announced last year that the Humber bridge would be built in time for it to be in service by 1976. Furthermore, substantial improvements are planned for Hull's road links with the West Riding and the main national trunk routes.

Mr. James Johnson

I asked my hon. Friend to say something about the financing of the bridge. I made the point that, although the Government are telling us to help ourselves, it is a bit difficult for local authorities to finance all their infrastructure.

Mr. Varley

I cannot give an absolute and authoritative assurance now, but I can tell my hon. Friend that part of the withdrawal of the S.E.P. from the development areas to finance the intermediate area programme will be used for infrastructure and part will probably be used for some of the roads in the Humberside area.

Mr. McNamara

Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the bridge, would he care to comment on the fact that the Opposition will not categorically say that they will build a bridge?

Mr. Varley

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North dealt very effectively with that. It is rather strange that we have not had a statement from the Opposition on this matter. We get all sorts of statements on a whole range of subjects, and it is a pity that they cannot say something about this. I am sure that people in Hull will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. James Johnson

Would my hon. Friend accept that the Opposition are unlikely to win the next General Election and therefore it is a hypothetical conjecture?

Mr. Varley

Absolutely. On the question of the bridge, perhaps I did not deal completely with the point raised by my hon. Friend. As I understand it, part of the withdrawal of the selective employment premium will be used for financing the Humber bridge, but perhaps if I am not absolutely correct on that I can drop my hon. Friend a note in order that it should be absolutely clear. The bridge will clearly have a fundamental effect on both banks of the Humber. It should in time lead to the development of north and south Humber as a single economic and social unit and the services and facilities of Hull will be opened up to the communities on the south bank—particularly Scunthorpe, where there is development taking place now in the steel industry, and Grimsby with its central area reorganisation under way. The adjoining resort of Cleethorpes should benefit from the increase of visitors from the north bank. Therefore, over the next few years we shall have taken big steps towards overcoming the area's disadvantages for industrial development—its remoteness and the divisive effect of the Humber estuary. These are firm decisions which industry can take into account now.

It has been put to us that we should be doing even more for North Humberside. I think it would be unreasonable to assume that the measures which we are taking will be inadequate even before the Local Employment Act, 1970, has come into force.

The measures we have chosen are directly linked to the provision of new jobs and are those most likely to have a direct impact on employment. Sixteen hundred jobs—the great majority for men—are already expected to arise from new industrial building over the next four years and with the incentives now available the rate at which new jobs are created should increase. Already we have received 23 provisional applications for building grant for projects in North Humberside. Time will show whether we have got the balance right. The new intermediate areas have been selected on the strict criteria of need and the measures carefully chosen to make the greatest impact with the limited resources available.

I am confident that we shall be successful in attracting new industries to North Humberside, but this can only be achieved over a period. It is the Government's job to try to create the conditions in which industry can flourish and be competitive; to help all parts of the country to make the most of their resources and their full contribution to national prosperity. But it is for industry to provide jobs and opportunities also. Indeed projects cannot be planned, launched and manned overnight. The supply of mobile industry is limited and the Government must hold the balance between the needs of different parts of the country through the operation of their I.D.C. control and the application of their incentives.

We shall be watching the progress on Humberside and the impact of our measures very closely. I am confident that the help we are giving to them, to- gether with the bridge and the improved road links, will greatly increase the attractiveness of the area to new industry and that we shall be successful in overcoming the problems now besetting the area.

My hon. Friend has done a service to his constituents and to the whole of Humberside by raising this important subject this evening. From my point of view, and consistent with my obligations to other areas of Britain, I shall do all that I can to assist him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.