NORTH HUMBERSIDE (Hansard, 25 November 1970)

§ Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)
I wish to speak tonight about the worsening economic conditions on the north bank of the Humber, including, of course, the city of Kingston upon Hull. I wish to put a number of questions to the Minister in the hope that he can give me some detailed answers if he cannot exactly fill me with hope for the future.
In 1926 I was on a coalfield and I saw the sad conditions that existed then, and I have known them since. I can understand why the North-East is a special development area. Now I am in Hull, which to me has always been the third port. It is not merely a first-class port with a deep water channel, facing the Continent; it has always been a city with important industries—chemicals, food processing, engineering, electrical and metal goods, timber, deep sea fishing, and so on.
There is a curious dichotomy about Hull. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will enlarge upon this. At the moment the port, if not booming, is certainly doing well; indeed, if we take the passengers coming in on our ferry services to Gothenburg, Rotterdam and Hamburg, the number has risen from a few thousand some years ago to about 160,000 today. So the port is doing well. The dockers are working well. We have a record which can compare with that of any other first-class port.
Since 1964 I have been a constant advocate of the need to safeguard the future of the city. Since 1966 there has been a watershed in our unemployment figures. They have worsened. This is possibly the fourth debate in the last six years upon Hull. It shows the constant anxiety that has existed as our unemployment figures have mounted. I have attacked my Government in the past for procrastination, because in Hull we never seem to have jam today; it is always jam tomorrow. A Minister of my party came to Hull and talked about the Humber bridge. Even if the bridge is built the estuary will divide and disunite the two 576 banks. There will be no direct way south for Hull, and the south bank, which is booming today with natural gas, oil and other developments will be detached from what we believe to be the capital city of the region.
The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) at a certain conference spoke about a magnificent new city with a population of 750,000. I wonder when we shall get that. This is in the future, but we have to do something now, if only to sustain and accelerate our economy in the 1970's. There have been feasibility studies which concluded that Humberside had a magnificent potential and could become a national growth area in the 1980's, but the final decision is deferred until 1972. The Labour Government gave us the go-ahead with the Humber bridge. We are still waiting for this Government to be solid and clear in this matter, and I hope the Minister will say something about this.
The unemployment figures are the highest since 1948. They have been steadily worsening since 1966. The outward migration is masking the significance of our surplus of males. It is the younger workers, the non-manual workers and skilled workers who are leaving us. As in all ports, our dock labour force is falling. So until 1975 the outlook for male employment is bleak.
We have been given intermediate area status. What benefit from this measure is now being felt? We shall perhaps not get the full benefit until the mid 1970's when the bridge is completed.
Will the Minister say something about the east-west road network, the M.18 which I hope will overcome the notorious bottleneck at Thorne, go through Cowick and link with the M.62 to give us a highway west. This will make us less isolated and give opportunity for expansion.
Our local industries are diverse, and this produces difficulties. About 32 per cent. have less than 20 workers. Our local factories are too small and cannot afford the cost of personnel and planning officers.
I will say a word about the benefits we get and ask the Minister how they affect us. With our new status we shall get 25 per cent., and in special cases 35 per cent., towards the cost of factory building. T. J. Smith & Nephew, the famous pharmaceutical firm, and Birds Eye, the 577 famous food firm, are expanding in East Hull. There is to be a new estate to the South, which I understand from the local newspaper will provide 7,000 jobs. What jobs will they be? Will the Minister suggest where we might look for expansion, investment and development to provide these thousands of jobs which are hopefully looked for by the city council and the city industrialists?
We have a Government training centre. How many people, male and female, are passing through this centre? In other words, what results are seeping through? How many jobs are in the pipeline? May we please be given some job figures? On many occasions I have asked for information about job opportunities, but we are still in the dark. The same applies to my questions about industrial development certificates. May we be given some information?
What view do the Government take of the Yorkshire and Humberside area for the future, and particularly in the coming year? There is much anxiety among Yorkshire hon. Members about this. We met last week, since when we have tabled an Early Day Motion urging that these intermediate areas be given full development area status. A civic deputation met the Minister recently. I was a member of it, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We got a somewhat dusty answer from the hon. Gentleman and our trade union colleagues left in quite a dudgeon. Has the Minister anything more optimistic to tell us now?
Are any firms expanding into this area? Has he been given notice of this? Should we start training our young people ahead of demand for any special skills that these firms might require? Do the Government intend to reshape the economy in this area, because the situation is getting worse? I trust I have asked enough of the sort of questions to make the Minister realise that we must be told what thoughts the Government have for solving some of the problems of this area.
I was disturbed to read some comments in yesterday's Guardian under the heading "Where they may look vainly to Whitehall". The article referred to North Yorkshire, Humberside, the East Midlands and other depressed areas which were, it said, worsening compared with 578 the West Midlands and the South-East. The article began: The full details of the Government's policy to combat inflation have yet to emerge, but whatever the outcome, the prospects for the already depressed regions of the country are grim". Whereas in Yorkshire and Humberside we were about 1 per cent. over the national average of unemployment, we are now running at 2.6 per cent. and going up. Does the Minister think that this worsening situation is a short-term problem or—to quote a famous leader of his party, "a little local difficulty"—or is it the beginning of a longer cycle?
There is a considerable surplus of male labour north of the Humber which is concealed only by the outward migration of which I have spoken. All the business people and all the citizens of the area are anxious for us to halt this decline, with Government help if we can get it. However, we are worried by Tory philosophy, since hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that industry will expand in, and be attracted to, only those places where there are good prospects of immediate profits. It is more important now to think in terms of the varieties of special assistance which the Government can give to the intermediate areas.
Good communications are important to us because of our comparative isolation. I have spoken of the M18 and M62, and I come to the Humber Bridge. May we be given some definite information about this tonight? According to a Written Answer given today the cost would be £20 million. I know that the Government are in touch with the board in Hull, which wrote to the Minister on 16th November about financing the bridge. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have from this Goverment the same backing that we had from the last. In the form of a loan at rates obviously cheaper than could be obtained from the outside money market? This information would help us greatly, and give us more heart on Humberside.
On the air services side, with the assistance of the Minister of Defence we are doing much better than we had expected. While recognising the difficulties, can the Minister help us in regard to the hours of operation of the aerodrome? I understand from my council colleagues 579 that we are being charged for the full service by the R.A.F. personnel. This may be merely an accounting procedure, but we are not in return getting full time help from the personnel.
In Cmnd. 4506 the Government tell us that they wish to move offices out of London. The Giro has gone to Bootle, the Mint has gone to Wales and I understand that the computer service has gone to Bradford. Will the Minister consider moving the headquarters of the White Fish Authority to Hull, which we consider to be a most excellent spot for it? Again, such action as this would give our people heart, some confidence in our long-term future and a feeling that the Government believe in us.
As the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) will tell him, we have in this area amenities second to none, with the chalk wolds behind us and the North Sea on our flank, with beaches and sands. We have many amenities which places that have been helped by the Government do not possess. So do not let us have the old tale about the North being unfashionable and people not liking to visit it. They do like it when they know about it. I might say that if a better image were given to us by the B.B.C. and the London newspapers we would find less opposition than we sometimes encounter.
We have had a feasibility study. We are told that, with our estuary looking towards Europe, our geopolitical position will be of immense service to us in the event of our entering the Common Market.
When will the Government choose the location for the Maritime Industrial Development Area? We claim that on the Humber we have better facilities than anywhere else for this unit. According to an accurate survey, we have about 140,000 acres of land on both banks suitable for either industrial or residential development. I urge the Minister to compare what we can offer with what can be offered by the Tees or any other estuary. I hope, Common Market or none, we shall soon have a decision.
Let no one say that there is any lack of self-help. We have had a malaise in the past, but we now have the North 580 Humberside Development Association, on whose steering committee my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East serves. That committee has produced what I believe to be a most helpful document about the future. I should like to see both banks fully developed. But let us now, with the aid of the Development Association, and with or without the aid of the B.B.C., scotch the idea that Hull is … a flat lonely city that no one knows. That is how the Observer referred to us not long ago. Hull is a city of parks and flowers. They will find water and ships within 200 yards of the Guildhall, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We have enormous potential for development. No other area has such an extent of good flat land. I ask the Minister to give us some details and facts to help us.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)
May I say at the outset that I am slightly glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) did not seek to intervene, because, had he done so, it would have left me no time to reply to the many points which have been raised. I am acutely aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter, too.
I was very pleased to receive a delegation from Hull in the earlier part of the Autumn. I am the first to admit that the situation in Hull is not as healthy and as happy as either side of the House or any Government would like it to be. I am therefore glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has raised this subject tonight. Nothing but good can come from trying to pin point the causes of the trouble and explaining how the Government see the problems facing Hull.
In June 1968 the unemployment percentage was 3.3–4.6 per cent. among males. By this year the latest figure was 4.3 per cent.–6 per cent. among males. There has been a steadily worensing situation in Hull since 1966, for which this Government are not to blame. It is a situation which we found on taking office. There is no doubt that the economic measures taken by the Labour 581 Government have not succeeded in bringing prosperity to places like Hull or, for that matter, to many of the development areas either. It is therefore clear that the policies hitherto pursued would not be appropriate to meet the problem in the future.
Indeed, the general suggestion that more and more money is the answer can no longer be sustained after the experience which places like Hull have suffered. There is no doubt that the best cure for all the problems of the development areas would be a reflation of the economy, but it is clearly impossible, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, in the present situation of wage explosion, which would make it incredibly reckless to reflate the economy wildly, especially at a time like this when wages are rising much faster than ever before.
It is a curious point, but one which must be made, that one of the obstacles which stands in the way of the regions is the wage inflation which is preventing the Government from taking the action which would reactivate the economy and make a great difference to places like Hull.
I am glad to agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that the port of Hull is doing very well, despite the fact that it has lost some trade to the other side of the river. We believe that it has great prospects if we join the Common Market and that its North European and Scandinavian trade will continue to expand.
I was next asked about the dispersal of Government offices. We announced in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Central Government that we intend to continue the policy of dispersing Government offices from London. A new study is about to be undertaken to determine what further work can be located out of London, and this study will have regard, not only to efficiency and economy, but also to regional considerations. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on the claims of any particular place. As to the White Fish Authority, we have no plans for relocating its headquarters in Hull.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about development area status for Hull. I think we must allow the intermediate area status, which Hull has, to have a 582 little more time to show what it can do. We supported intermediate areas on this side of the House and the inclusion of Hull in one of the intermediate areas, and the period since the announcement, which I think is a more important date than the coming into force of legislation, has been about a year and a half.
During the year 1969, 1,000 new jobs were provided under i.d.c.s. in Kingston upon Hull, and during the first 10 months as opposed to 12 months in 1970 the number has risen to 1,500. This is a considerable improved rate of striking in what I might call a less happy year for the generation of mobile industry. So one can assume that the benefits of an intermediate area are having some effect.
I will give a few examples of recent development in North Humberside. Capper Pass have set up an ore smelter which is estimated to provide eventually 250 extra jobs. B.P. Chemical have sought an i.d.c. for 90,000 square feet and a further i.d.c. for 35,000 square feet this year. There is also the development of J. M. Fenner & Co. Ltd., Belmont Caravan Co. Ltd. and Ace Caravan Co. Ltd. all of which are swelling the new jobs which will be available in the area.
To give another statistic, in the last 1½ years since intermediate status was announced for Hull, there have been 84 applications for building grants which are expected to provide a further 2,000 jobs. We must, however, keep this in perspective. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that although his problem is one which causes great concern, in Clydeside there are 37,000 unemployed and on Tyneside there are 17,000 unemployed. The dimension of these problems is so much more serious than that of Hull that it would not be right at this stage to give development area status to Hull, thereby detracting from the advantages which are available in the development areas relative to other parts of the country.
I should like briefly to try to answer the hon. Gentleman's points about communications. I think he could overdo this point about isolation and remoteness. Certainly the communications to Hull are not good, but of course when it is properly connected to the road network it will be much nearer the centre and the heart of the country than many places which are further afield. Links 583 to the M62, the A1 and to the M18, and finally on to the M1 should all be complete by the middle of the 1970s and these east-west communications will, I believe, make a very great difference to the advantages and the attractiveness of Hull. The fact that the roads have started and that a date is in prospect for their completion will cause firms to begin to think about Hull. It is in my own limited experience remarkable how the mere fact that a road starts attracts industry. Whether or not it is finished, it is the failure to announce a starting date which so often delays firms' intentions to move.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Humber Bridge. To be twitted by him for not having got this started is a little hard. I remember the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) announcing at the North Hull by-election in 1966 that the bridge was about to be started. But it has not materialised yet. The hon. Gentleman will know that four years have gone by without any action being taken by his own Government.

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)
May I intervene?

§ Mr. Ridley
No, the right hon. Gentleman may not.

§ Mr. Shore
I want to correct that misstatement.

§ Mr. Ridley
The last Government did not promise financial assistance for the bridge. They merely said, on 30th April, 1969: Like other major estuarial crossings, the bridge will be financed by loan, and tolled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1969; Vol. 782, C. 1439.] That is my right hon. Friend's position. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the question of when the bridge will be completed and what the present situation is, he must ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, who, as he knows, is having further discussions with the local authorities about the financing of the bridge. I cannot say more about the bridge itself than that.
Overall, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the situation in Hull. I should like to have been able to answer all his questions, but it is not possible in 10 minutes. We believe that the present status of intermediate area is the right status for Hull. There is no intention to change that, and the attractions which it offers are, in our opinion, beginning to bring some new industry to the town. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to wish Hull good fortune and as much development as can be got there in the future.