HC Deb 04 August 1972 vol 842 cc1159-75

1.19 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

The matter which I wish to raise this afternoon, that of the redundancies which are threatened at Messrs. Redpath Dorman Long Ltd. in my constituency, may seem a small matter, and compared to the massive redundancies which have been announced in the steel industry in Scotland, and the redundancies which have already taken place and are threatened in the North East and Tees-side, the spectacle of some 90 redundancies which are threatened in a part of the British Steel Corporation in South-East London may seem relatively unimportant. Yet I should like to make it clear that it has very wide implications both for London as a whole and for South-East London and the constituency of Greenwich, which I represent.

For the convenience of the Minister I will relate the story as it is known to me. Early last month the management of the Redpath Dorman Long East Greenwich works, which is a subsidiary of the British Steel Corporation, saw the shop stewards and sent a letter to all employees, a copy of which I have here. It says: Preliminary estimates indicate that total reduction in manning will be about 90 people of which between 60 and 70 will be in the works and between 20 and 30 staff. In addition, nine or 10 people will be invited to transfer to Scunthorpe. This letter caused a widespread shock, perfectly naturally in the works itself, but also in the whole of the Greenwich area amongst people who have been concerned about the number of redundancies which have occurred in the area in the last few years.

Shortly after the redundancies were announced, the South-East London Industrial Consultative Group, of which I am a vice-chairman, received a deputation from the employees. As a result, the chairman and secretary of the group and I went to see the management and had a very useful discussion. We were informed that the redundancies were necessary because of the falling demand for the products of the company and of the Constructional Engineering Division of the British Steel Corporation.

Clearly, I am in no position to make an informed judgment on the management decisions which have been taken, but that is not to say that others are not making judgments about them, and a good deal of speculation is going on amongst the employees of the factory. There are suspicions within the firm that the redundancies are associated with the Government's decision to convert the Constructional Engineering Division into a separate company with the possibility of attracting private capital, and that the reason for restructuring the division is to make the undertaking sufficiently profitable to attract that capital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), when he used to speak from the Opposition Front Bench on steel matters, warned the Government of this likely outcome when these proposals were announced by the Secretary of State in June, 1971. What is undeniable and what is spelt out in the Annual Report of the British Steel Corporation for 1971–72 is the consequence for this division of Government economic policy. I quote from page 30 of that report: By the end of the year the Division's structural steelwork order book had fallen to a level where there were problems in maintaining adequate loading on all the fabricating shops. Significant improvement depends on a return to a normal level of industrial investment in the United Kingdom and on the Division's success in capturing a share of the major new market for North Sea oil production platforms in the face of strong competition from the United States and from Europe. The division has the necessary skills and resources and is developing a facility at Methil in Fife for the construction of these platforms. Ultimately the British Steel Corporation has stood to lose as a consequence of the Government's failure to expand employment and production. Inevitably, an industry that is involved in capital production is bound to suffer seriously. Negotiations are going on between management and men, and I am unqualified to comment on these. It would be improper for me to attempt to do so, except perhaps to say two things.

The first concerns the suddeness with which the redundancies were announced and the complete lack of consultation before they were announced. I have here a letter from someone employed in the factory, not a constituent of mine, which reads as follows: We feel very bitter about the way the management annouced the redundancies without any previous consultation with the unions. They must have planned it a long time ago. I feel especially grieved, as a member of the Labour Party, that this can happen in a nationalised industry. It seems to be a case of speculators investing. They simply inform the workers that they propose to close down half of the yard and lay off 50 per cent. of the labour force. This was completely unexpected as, although we have not been very busy, the management had indicated that there was plenty of work in hand. It would have been wise to give plenty of advance warning and to make it perfectly clear from the start that the unions would be fully consulted about decisions that were being taken and about the way in which the redundancies were to be conducted.

My second point is that it appears to me as an outsider that during the negotiations the local management does not have authority to make anything but minimal concessions.

I turn to the question why these redundancies are so important for the district as a whole. Political and Economic Planning has recently published a report entitled "What happened to the workers in Woolwich?", which confirms the worst fears that I and other hon. Members representing Greenwich have had about the situation in the borough and in South-East London generally.

Before I refer to the report, I will repeat facts which have been known to us for some time. It has been estimated that in 1951 there were 55,000 jobs in manufacturing industry in the borough of Greenwich. By 1966 the number had decreased to 33,000. The estimate for 1970 is only 22,000. That is an alarming trend by any standards and, if it is allowed to continue at the present rate, I can see the possibility of there being no jobs in manufacturing industry in the borough of Greenwich by the late 1980s. I cannot believe that that is what this Government or any other Government want.

I am not suggesting that anyone in the borough regrets the regional policy of successive Governments which has benefited areas of heavy unemployment. But many people are beginning to feel that the somewhat blunt instrument that has been used in the past has not brought full benefit to the developing regions of the country and, at the same time, has done serious damage to areas such as South-East London, which are relatively badly affected as a consequence of regional policies. What many of us in South-East London are pleading for is a more sensitive and flexible regional policy which will take into account the special needs of our area.

It is also relevant to talk about the decline of jobs in constructional engineering in London as a whole and about the decline in the number of jobs in this firm. I understand that in the 1920s this works in East Greenwich employed 900 men. In 1945, because of changes in techniques and so on, the number had dropped to between 500 and 600 men. Now the number is about 300. The redundancies which are threatened will bring the number down even further so that there may be only about 200 people employed in the works. It is perfectly natural for the men employed in the factory to wonder where this process will end and to be deeply worried about the future of the works as a whole.

I know that there is the same trend in manufacturing industry generally, and the Government have already shown that they recognise this situation. On 1st August the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox), said, The hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is no complacency on our part as regards London or any other part of the country. Overall the situation in London is much better than in the rest of the country, although I admit that manufacturing employment in London is declining. However, opportunities in the service industries are increasing. Some workers are moving out of London. Industrial development certificates are not now required in the South East up to 10,000 sq. ft. Therefore, this should also be an encouragement. If the hon. Gentleman is patient he will find that the situation in London will go on improving, as it has been improving."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1972; Vol. 842, c. 335.] I am afraid I am not quite so hopeful as the hon. Gentleman who gave that reply. The trends are there in the long term, but in the meantime some action should be taken to stem what looks like the development of a highly critical situation.

I referred earlier to the situation in the constructional engineering industry in London as a whole. I have a list of firms which were operating in the Greater London area in 1948. It contains 21 names of firms that were carrying out constructional engineering work in that area, and includes famous names such as Harland and Wolff, North Woolwich; Dorman Long and Company, Battersea; T. C. Jones, Acton, and so on. I am reliably informed that of those 21 firms only three are now operating in the Greater London area. It is true that there are opportunities for the development of service industries in London, but I should like to know when this trend which I have outlined will be halted. I am keen to see a continuing, expanding and successful manufacturing industry in London, and it is right that we should try to achieve some balance of employment. But if we allow the trend towards service industries to continue, we shall be in danger of throwing away valuable skills which the country possesses.

The PEP survey, which I have already mentioned, refers to redundancies which took place in the years 1968 to 1970 in a number of firms and the report clearly brings out the appalling amount of human misery which resulted from those redundancies. I do not in this debate wish to refer to the misery and unhappiness which has resulted from these redundancies. I wish to concentrate the Government's mind on the question of the skills which are being lost. What is clear from the report is that when people were made redundant from AEI (Woolwich) and other firms, they tended to take less skilled jobs than those which they previously occupied. The report must be studied carefully and acted upon if we are conscious of the need to retain the skills which we possess. There is traditionally an important and successful engineering industry in South-East London which, as the report makes clear, is in danger of disappearing.

Other points which emerge from the report relate to the relative immobility of labour in South-East London because of high transport costs and the difficulties people experience in moving to new homes to make it possible for them to take other jobs. A further point that emerges is that in my constituency and elsewhere in the borough there are highly skilled men whose jobs are specific to the firms in which they work. I recently spoke to the shop stewards in Redpath Dorman Long and asked whether there were any other jobs in the area of which they knew requiring the same kind of skills as those now possessed by the workers in that firm. Since Redpath Dorman Long is one of the last three firms in London undertaking a constructional engineering work, it was not surprising that the shop stewards said that they saw little or no prospect of being able to use those same skills in London again.

Is the Minister fully aware of the serious unemployment situation in Greenwich? I know that this situation comes as a surprise to many people, but I have figures which give grave cause for concern. I should like first to refer to the ratio of unemployed persons against vacancies. The figures I am using refer to June, 1972. For the United Kingdom the figure is 3.9 per cent.; for the South-East London industrial consultative group area, which covers most of South-East London, 4.6 per cent.; for the GLC as a whole, 1.67 per cent.; for Greenwich—and this relates to the Deptford and Woolwich exchanges—7.06 per cent. There is a serious pocket of unemployment against unfilled vacancies. Again we recognise that there has been a welcome improvement in the unemployment figures in the last few months—nothing like enough, but something for which to be grateful.

I also wish to refer to the percentages showing the decline in the gap between registered unemployed and vacancies from February, 1972 to June, 1972. For the United Kingdom the figure is 64 per cent.; for the South-East London area, 39 per cent.; the GLC area, 43 per cent.; and for the Greenwich area, 27 per cent. This shows that our area has benefited far less than has the GLC area as a whole, and that we certainly have benefited far less than the United Kingdom generally in terms of the improvement in employment which has taken place.

I do not want to detain the House for much longer and I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to me so far. There is, however, one other point I am bound to make. The shop stewards and the men to whom I have spoken are not asking for sympathy. They do not want it. They speak of the pride which they possess in the firm for which they work and in the work which they have done. I have a letter from the secretary of the shop stewards committee in which he says, The part played by the Redpath Greenwich works has been very significant indeed since the end of the first world war. Greenwich was in at the start of the Ford Dagenham complex and has been responsible for the erection of probably 80 per cent. of the Dagenham site which stands today. Later he says, An interesting contract of a small nature but worth relating came about as the result of the fire which occurred in the Ilford shopping centre in the mid-1950s. A fairly large area was destroyed and the sites, when cleared, were of considerable value. Harrison Gibsons, the furniture dealers, decided to rebuild a new and larger reinforced concrete-framed structure while Moultons, a nearby soft goods retailers sold out to another combine who settled for rebuilding with a steel frame. Redpath, Greenwich, secured the Moultons contract. Work on both sites started at the same time and it was clear quite soon that there was a race in progress. Redpath won the race, hands down. This is the kind of attitude one sees among these men. They are not seeking sympathy but they are proud of the skills they possess and they want this to be recognised outside. One of the disturbing features one finds in talking to men in the trade union branches and in the working men's clubs is the general air of depression in the area as a whole. They are wondering how long manufacturing industry can last in this part of London. I urge the Government to take the situation seriously if they take equally seriously the need to maintain the level of skill and achievement which has characterised British industry. I hope that they will see that urgent and reasonable efforts are made to retain the industry and skill of this working force in South-East London.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) on his presentation of this urgent problem and wish to underline a number of his points.

I doubt whether there is a constituency anywhere in Britain which has suffered such a huge amount of redundancy as that suffered in my constituents over the period since 1951. Two of the greatest redundancies in Britain in this period have been the running-down of the Royal Arsenal, which many years ago gave jobs to more than 40,000 people but which when I became a Member of this House gave jobs to nearly 20,000 men and women, and the closing down of the AEI works, which employed 5,500 people. In addition, there have been many other smaller but extremely damaging redundancies. I endorse emphatically all that my hon. Friend said about the need to pay attention to this area as being one which is no longer as it used to be, a full employment area, but one where there are real problems of unemployment and wasted skills.

I do not oppose, any more than my hon. Friend does, the general principle of regional planning. In fact we were pioneer supporters of the policy. Nor do we stand in the way of technological change. I have never failed to make clear that as technology changes jobs are bound to change. What we are saying is that men in our area have been made redundant over the years, and they have not found new work. As a result their skills have been wasted unnecessarily. We urge the Government to pay very careful attention to this point.

My hon. Friend referred to the valuable and original study by Political and Economic Planning of the redundancy which followed the closing of the AEI works in my constituency. I hope that the Minister can show that he is familiar with this report. It is original, of national importance, and highlights the human problems and the economic waste involved in redundancy on this scale.

May I put this point to the Minister? Is he aware that the Government are not merely discriminating in favour of the development areas. We understand that. In the case of Greenwich they are discriminating against us in a very special way. They are discriminating against us because in the area we have the new town of Thamesmead building and, so far from applying to Thamesmead the employment policies that they apply to new towns in other parts of the country, they are applying to Thamesmead the same extremely restrictive IDC policy that they apply to the fully employed areas of the country. This is an anomaly. It is wrong. It should not be so.

In one sense we are fortunate in Greenwich. Thamesmead has fallen three years behind schedule. If this new town had kept up to schedule we should have had thousands and thousands of new people resident in Thamesmead for whom no employment was available. Our existing problems would have been greatly worsened had it not been for the many failings, most of them at County Hall, which have held back the proper and timely development of Thamesmead new town.

Therefore there is a special reason for the Minister to look at the unemployment position in my constituency. As my hon. Friend has explained so well, it is not only a crude unemployment problem. There is also the problem of the lack of unfilled vacancies and of ineffective retraining facilities. The queues for the Government training centres in the area are disgraceful. Recently I asked for details of all the waiting lists for Government training centres in the area. They were so long that it was a mockery for me to suggest to some of my young unemployed constituents that they should apply for retraining. There were one or two trades—I remember that hairdressing was one—where it was possible to get a course at a Government training centre within about two months. For the rest it was necessary to wait a year and more

I wish the Government to look carefully at three factors. The first is the need for better retraining facilities in the area. I know that a new training centre is coming. But it is a wider problem than that. The PEP report shows an understanding and knowledge that retraining facilities need improving. The arrangement for encouraging those who are redundant to retrain needs looking at again.

I ask the Government also to look at their employment policy as it relates to this area of London, bearing in mind that we have a new town building and that by the 1980s we shall have 45,000 new residents in Thamesmead.

I ask the Government also to look at their IDC policy for our region. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the Government have not turned down applications for IDCs in the area for a long time. But that is not my complaint. I am not complaining that the Government turn down IDC applications when they are made. I am complaining that in their policy, their publicity and their regulations on this point they show such a restrictiveness and such a discouragement to industrialists wishing to set up works in my constituency that they do not even trouble to make applications for IDCs.

It is not altogether surprising. If I were a British industrialist, even more if I were someone from Dusseldorf or Toulon, considering bringing employment to the area I should take one look at the regulations and the official information leaflets issued by the hon. Gentleman's Department and decide that it was not for me, that I was not likely to get any encouragement, that I would not get an IDC, and that it was better not to go there.

The Minister will probably say that perhaps instead these people will go to the development areas. Let him show any evidence for that. I suspect strongly that a number of industrialists who would come to this area if the Government did not choke them off will not go to development areas and in fact will not invest in Britain at all. I am talking now especially of European and American investors.

These are matters which the Government should consider. Their failure to understand the problems in Woolwich is a scandal. They have not yet shown that they understand that there is a problem. I want the Minister to convince us that he understands the problem and that he is taking urgent action to get on top of it.

1.49 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie (Rutherglen)

It may surprise the Minister that I intervene in a debate of this kind. Before doing so, perhaps I might congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) on initiating it. He raised two points. The first was the general question of employment in the South-East area, and I understand and sympathise with the problems raised by him and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).

The second point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich touches on my own interest in the debate since in my constituency I have one of the plants of Redpath Brown, the firm responsible for my hon. Friend's decision to raise this matter.

I say to both my hon. Friends that I never thought that I should need to sympathise with the unemployment difficulties of two of my colleagues who represent constituencies in what we have always regarded as the prosperous South-East of England. Scotland has had this problem for a very long time. My constituency, along with other parts of Scotland, has one of the highest unemployment levels ever. The Minister will obviously draw his own conclusions why unemployment is now more troublesome in the South-East than in days gone by.

I want to mention two particular points about Redpath Brown which have been troubling me. The plant in my constituency is part of a wider steel making area producing both general and special steels. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, for some years we have been concerned about the change in techniques in the constructional engineering industry. In days gone by, much of the product of Redpath Brown and similar companies was used in housing and allied types of development, but that is no longer so to the same extent. It means that there have been quite widespread closures, not only in Scotland, but elsewhere, and this has created a great deal of uncertainty.

I realise that Redpath Brown is part of the British Steel Corporation's wider interests, but I hope the Minister will at some stage take up the whole problem with his right hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Secretary of State for Scotland, make them aware that it is a serious matter for the constructional engineering industry, and see whether in the new techniques which are being advanced for the building of houses, factories, and so on, steel may have some place as in days gone by.

There has been a great deal of uncertainty in steel making and associated trades. There is the prospect of closure of the general steel division of the BSC in my constituency, which might amount to thousands of jobs being lost, and the fear that the same thing could happen in Redpath Brown.

Some weeks ago I was approached by representatives of both employees, on the shop floor and those concerned with administration regarding their whole future which seems to be in jeopardy because of the new financial arrangements which the Government have for the constructional engineering division of the British Steel Corporation. I was given assurances by Lord Melchett on pensions, but he said it was difficult to give any specific guarantees about future employment at Redpath Brown in view of fluctuations in trade.

This is a point of great concern. The area which I represent already has high unemployment and there is now the prospect of massive closures in the steel industry. Therefore, we should like to be assured that the constructional engineering division will be maintained, and if building techniques can be adapted to help the British Steel Corporation, we should be grateful.

1.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)—for his pleasant, but somewhat surprising, intervention—for participating in the debate.

This is an immensely important subject, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich on the way in which he has presented his case. From the start I should like to say that I am very much aware of the problems of South-East London and of the natural disquiet that is felt when there is a loss of employment. Although unemployment in the Greater London travel-to-work area can in no way be compared with other less fortunate parts of the country, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen will appreciate, I recognise that this does not lessen the social impact that job losses have on the individuals concerned. I respect the constituents of the hon. Member for Greenwich who said they did not want sympathy, which I understand, but it is right to say that my sympathies are wholly with those who suffer the consequences of events over which they have little or no control.

One of the main reasons for the number of closures, including that which we are debating today, has been the need for rationalisation of industry to improve its efficiency. This has affected South-East London particularly because of the nature of its traditional work. In some cases production has been transferred in this process to factories in the assisted areas or, indeed, in overspill towns. This has naturally been welcomed by my Department as according with its aims of providing employment for these priority areas. The House will know from earlier debates on regional matters that we have to take a wide view of issues as they affect the country as a whole but to pay particular regard to those areas with long-established problems.

I recognise that in raising the problem of redundancy at BSC's Greenwich works the hon. Gentleman feels that it is symptomatic of a problem that has been developing over a number of years. For many years there was a strong demand for labour throughout Greater London as a whole. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the statistics. Perhaps I might bring him up to date. The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures for June, 1972. I have the July figures, which are a little more encouraging.

In South-East London the ratio of unemployed to unfilled vacancies was 3.8:1, in contrast with 4.6:1 in June. That 3.8:1 in July contrasted with 3.9:1 for Great Britain as a whole. Though I do not suggest that is the be all and end all, it is a slightly more encouraging trend from which some moderate comfort can be taken.

The Government understand the concern and anxiety aroused by the BSC's decision to make a number of people redundant at its Greenwich works. However, I must emphasise that such decisions on individual works are matters entirely for the Corporation to make, and the Government cannot intervene. Indeed, the Labour Government did not intervene. The British Steel Corporation cannot consider the prospects for a particular plant in isolation. This may give rise to decisions which local interests may question. Sometimes decisions which are difficult in one part of the country are necessary in the interests of the industry as a whole and may be responsible for conserving the employment pattern of people in more difficult parts of the Kingdom. The Corporation must look to its responsibilities for the industry as a whole in taking its decisions.

I was concerned by what the hon. Member for Greenwich said about consultations with the unions. I understand that these take place, and the general record of the BSC in the way it seeks to minimise suffering by consultation with employees and unions is admirable. However, what the hon. Gentleman said will be noted by the corporation, and I understand that discussions are going on with the union. I do not think that I should like to say any more, save to hope that they will prove to be fruitful.

The Government are not responsible for decisions on individual works, but they do not wish to evade their responsibility for assisting with the social consequences that may arise. The full range of facilities to help men made redundant will be made available, and I can tell the House that a job team from the Department has gone down to Greenwich today to discuss alternative work prospects with the 30 people who have been declared redundant.

The debate has ranged perhaps a little wider than just Greenwich, into South-East London as a whole, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East in particular criticised the IDC policy. There was strong criticism when we came to office that the IDC policy was too rigid, but a number of things then with which I have been concerned have happened since to ease the situation.

The hon. Gentleman argued for a more relaxed IDC policy, but the policy is operated very much more flexibly than it was two years or even one year ago, and account is taken of local conditions in deciding an application. In the last two years there has been only one IDC refusal, and this hardly suggests an inflexible attitude on the part of my Department.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the true situation is masked. He says that no account is taken of overseas firms, mobile industry, and so on, which are so petrified by the prospects of a fierce IDC policy that they do not pursue it and therefore do not try to go to other parts of the country. I do not have the exact figures, but if the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question I shall endeavour to answer it. I have, however, looked at the position myself, and I can tell him that as a result of the IDC policy a large number of firms have located themselves in assisted areas.

I should also remind hon. Members from the South East of the pressures that I have to resist and the accusations with which I have to deal from the hon. Member for Rutherglen, and perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and others, that we are too soft and wishy-washy on IDC policy. I have to maintain a balance.

Mr. Mayhew

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, since the relaxation of IDC policy to which he refers, he has altered the official information and publicity which his Department distributes to industrialists in such a way as to eradicate those phrases which would certainly put off any industrialist, be he British, European or American, from applying for an IDC in the first place?

Only a year ago I recall reading that "new development brought to the area would not be permitted if it led to undue demands for labour". Will the hon. Gentleman assure me either that that phrase no longer exists or, if it does, that he will instantly remove it?

Mr. Grant

The best way that I can answer that is by saying that, in response to requests from industry, in June of last year, I think it was, we published in our official journal, Trade and Industry, various criteria by which we approach IDCs in various parts of the country. It may be that that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. We shall see whether a revised form can be published indicating the changes which have taken place.

South-East London forms part of the GLC travel-to-work area, in which unemployment is at 1.7 per cent. This is considerably better than in most parts of the country, and a great deal better than in the assisted areas where not only is the percentage higher, but alternative job opportunities do not exist. Whatever we publish will have to take account of the different circumstances in different parts of the country. Nevertheless, as in March following our White Paper on regional policy, the raising of the IDC ceiling to 10,000 sq. ft. in the South-East will help industry to grow and develop.

What is significant in South-East London is the rise in unfilled vacancies, which in July stood at 3,057 compared with 1,812 in January of this year. Furthermore, unfilled vacancies for Greater London as a whole now total 46,186, which is a not-insignificant number and should provide considerable scope for those looking for jobs.

Parts of South-East London are being developed and the decline in manufacturing industry has been accompanied by an expansion of service industry. This is especially true of office employment in Lewisham and Bexley, and a further expansion of office, hotel and other service industry is expected from the development of the riverside area.

There have been complaints—and I think that we have heard some this afternoon—that the growth in service industry will not provide work for those, especially the older workers, who become redundant in manufacturing industry, and there are reports of skilled workers being forced into unskilled work. But in the Government's view this is not borne out by the experience of local employers, who say that they have difficulty in recruiting skilled men. The PEP survey, an interesting document to which reference has been made this afternoon, found that many redundant workers had skills which were specific to the place where they had worked and were in little demand elsewhere in an area where the nature of employment was changing.

But by the very nature of things, we cannot stand still in this respect. As the hon. Member for Woolwich, East recognised, change is taking place all the time. I take the point that more should be done to draw attention to this, and my colleagues in the Department will note what the hon. Member for Woolwich. East said, but the extensive expansion of training facilities will do a great deal to help workers, such as those we are discussng this afternoon, to learn new skills and to earn the consequent rewards that accompany them.

There are 300 additional places at Government training centres at Poplar, Waddon and Medway, all within easy travelling distance of Greenwich, which will become available to them this autumn and the spring of next year. The area will also benefit substantially from the expansion of training facilities in colleges of further education and employers' establishments. But, having said that, I believe that, consistent with the need to look at the training programme as a whole, the hon. Gentleman is right in stressing the need for greater training facilities as time goes on and as technological changes take place.

I propose to sum up on an optimistic note because it is important that people in the South East, as well as those in Rutherglen and elsewhere, should be optimistic. First, I stress that the IDC policy has been eased, though this is not always entirely recognised by potential developers in the area. This should help to remove one of the major criticisms and enable some useful limited expansion to take place. Where IDCs are required, control will be operated with flexibility. Job vacancies are arising not only in South-East London but in the Greater London area as a whole, and Government training facilities are also being expanded, if not necessarily as much as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) would like. I am advised that the British Steel Corporation is considering alternative uses for the space vacated which we hope will provide new alternative jobs in the future.

Last but by no means least are the Government measures designed to improve, demand, investment and employment as a whole. I do not propose in this short debate to catalogue them all because it would take far too long. The Government's economic measures are of overwhelming importance to the general economic health of the country and, therefore, to South-East London. But in order for us to succeed we must ensure that the opportunities that are presented to us, not only on entry into the Common Market—which is of considerable significance to South-East London and which is only five months away—but also in other overseas markets and in the home markets are grasped quickly.

In their economic programme the Government have set the scene generally for expansion. I believe that South-East London has a most important role to play by reason of its location, history and the type of people who work there, and I believe that the area can look to a very hopeful and prosperous future.