UNEMPLOYMENT (MANCHESTER) (Hansard, 22 February 1972)

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)
I raise tonight the question of unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area. I am grateful for the opportunity of raising it and I would say to the Minister who is to reply to the debate that unless urgent action is taken on this problem Manchester is in danger of becoming a disaster area. I say this because, although there is serious unemployment in many parts of the country, Manchester has special problems which require special policies to deal with them.
In Great Britain since the General Election of June, 1970, unemployment has risen by 79 per cent. That is grave enough, but in the Manchester travel-to-work area unemployment during this period has gone up by more than 100 per cent.; it has more than doubled. The total number of unemployed has risen from 15,017 to 30,135. The number of wholly unemployed has risen from 14.884 to 29,894. The breadwinners who are out of work, men aged over 18 are up from 13,212 to 26,358. Manchester's position is deteriorating, not only in itself but in relation to the rest of the country.
In June, 1970, Manchester's unemployment was below the national average. Even a year ago, in January 1971, it was below the national average. Now, however, for the first time since the 1930s, Manchester's unemployment at 4.4 per cent. is above the national average. What is more, employment opportunities are vanishing fast, there are redundancies and especially closures. In the last few months the closure of Irlam has been announced and there have been re-redundancies at I.C.L. at West Gorton in my constituency and at the Nuclear Power Group in Knutsford, which provides employment opportunities in Manchester generally. At Churchill Machine Tools, Altrincham, employing 1,100, a closure has been announced with a reprieve of six months, but there is no 1244 guarantee that after six months those 1,100 jobs will be saved. Of 515 jobs at the Avon Rubber Company at Ardwick, 70 have gone and the other 445 are to go at the end of the month through closure.
I note with satisfaction the presence of hon. Friends of mine from Manchester constituencies, but I am appalled at the absence of any hon. Member from a Manchester constituency on the Government side when we are debating this extremely serious situation. Not one Tory Manchester Member cares enough about the 30,000 unemployed in Manchester even to attend.

§ Mr. Peter Rees (Dover)
Who wants to listen to the hon. Member?

§ Mr. Kaufman
The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) can rustle up some of his hon. Friends from Manchester constituencies if he likes to do so.

§ Mr. Rees
My hon. Friends from Manchester constituencies know better than to listen to the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Kaufman
At Dawson Barfos in the constituency of Gorton there is a closure by which 250 more jobs will go. Since then there have been 150 redundancies at Ferranti's in Hollinwood and Wythenshawe, 250 at Groves Whitnall brewery, 116 at Edward Holmes and Company's electrical switchgear works and 93 redundancies at Francis Shaw rubber works. This is the tragic list in the Manchester area. The problem is even worse because vacancies to take up redundancies do not exist. In the period since June, 1970, the number of vacancies has more than halved. In June, 1970, there were five men chasing every job vacant in Manchester. That was bad enough, but a year ago there were eight men chasing every job and today there are 25 for every vacancy.
In the three highest categories of unemployment the situation in Manchester is appalling. The latest figures are for September, 1971. In the construction industry there are 16 unemployed for every job available. In the distributive trades there are seven unemployed for every job and in electrical engineering there are 18 unemployed for every job.
I wrote last month to the Secretary of State for Employment asking what 1245 special measures he would take to deal with closure at the Avon Rubber works. He told me of the special measures being taken. This demonstrates the tragedy of the situation. He told me that his Department was making a special approach to 400 employers in the area and that to date this had resulted in 77 additional vacancies for men and 62 for women. This is a tragic situation. The new jobs situation is nowhere near keeping up with the number of redundancies. During the last 13 months there have been 13,130 redundancies in Manchester but the number of jobs in manufacturing industry resulting from industrial development certificates in that period was only 1,971. For every seven redundancies only one new job has been created.
This is a frightening problem for the City of Manchester, an industrial centre with a fine, historic reputation in the development of British industry. The men and women who live there are hardworking, with unrivalled skills. It is a terrible fact that industry there is in a state of decline and unless something is done my lion. Friends and I fear that the decline will be irreversible. The basic industries in the area are closing and hardly any, if any, new industry is coming in. The Minister may well say, as the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, that when the promised expansion comes everything will be all right.
I have had my doubts for some time about whether the expansion was coming. Even if we have the unparalleled boom of which the Prime Minister has spoken, there is little scope for expansion in the city and the area round it. There is no guarantee, as there is in some areas, that if and when the boom comes Manchester will be floating off its depression on that boom.
My hon. Friends representing Manchester constituencies and surrounding areas are present in some numbers this evening, unlike hon. Members opposite who represent the city and have not bothered to turn up. We are not simply complaining: we have specific proposals to make. We ask first that intermediate area status be given to the city and greater Manchester. We say this well knowing that the Minister may say that 1246 some areas are worse off than we are. That may be so—some areas certainly are—but the North-East Lancashire intermediate area has a lower unemployment level than we have. We do not begrudge North-East Lancashire its intermediate area status but we say that if it has it, we want it too and we have the right to claim it. We want the benefits that intermediate area status brings, namely, the large house building grants available under the Housing Act.
I have repeatedly asked the Government to extend the benefits of that Act to Manchester but they have said that they cannot do so because we are not an assisted area. In view of our unemployment problems and our specific construction industry problems we should be given intermediate area status so that we can qualify for those benefits. I ask the Government to heed the demands made by the North West Industrial Development Association on behalf of Manchester and the surrounding area—demands made to the Prime Minister who has not responded—that building grants should be made available to companies, irrespective of employment considerations, towards the cost of constructing new industrial premises and modernising old industrial premises in all parts of the region. There should be 100 per cent. grants to local authorities for the clearance of derelict industrial sites and buildings.
Those are specific requests. Above all we ask for an end to the ban announced last year on industrial development certificates for new projects, a ban imposed by the Minister when he sent out the guide saying that industrial development certificates in greater Manchester would not generally be granted for new projects, for entirely new lines of production or for substantial expansion which could be undertaken elsewhere. We ask for the end of that ban because we must have a transfusion of new lifeblood in Manchester.
I received a letter recently from a constituent who has been employed for 41 years at Churchill Machine Tools which is now under sentence of death. My constituent wrote: I sincerely hope that you can bring some pressure to bear in order to dissuade this Government from its policy to denude the North-West of its own industry. 1247 I hope that in his reply the Minister will give us not comforting bromides but a promise of definite and specific action to help Manchester in its dismaying plight. We look for a message of hope. We hope that we shall not be disappointed.

§ Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)
I think that the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) for raising again the problem of escalating unemployment in the greater Manchester area. Rationalisation, redundancy, unemployment, call it what we will, is by no means something new for my constituents. We have witnessed unemployment in many differing forms. However, what is causing anxiety and alarm in the Manchester area now is the new form of redundancy and unemployment which is manifesting itself in the city.
We have seen virtually the decimation of the textile industry in the Failsworth area of my constituency. Only months ago we saw the loss of 600 jobs at the British Steel Corporation at Openshaw. We have seen the closure of Beyer Peacock, a great industrial combine, the closing of the Admiralty Gunnery Depot and the closing of the Bradford Colliery in my constituency. Unemployment in its many and varied forms has been inflicted on my constituents and on the residents of Manchester in general.
When the Under-Secretary of State replied to a similar debate last year I intervened towards the end and invited him to come and see the problem for himself. It is all very well to sit on the Government Front Bench looking upon unemployment as a statistical academic exercise, but unemployment for my constituents is a real, human problem. It affects so many of their domestic lives. I realise that the Under-Secretary's programme for visits to the regions is intense and pressurised, but I hope he will accept the invitation of my hon. Friends the Members for the Manchester constituencies of Ardwick, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), Blackley (Mr. Rose) and Gorton (Mr. Marks) and myself to come and discuss the problem with our constituents in the city and see for himself 1248 at first hand the human suffering which has arisen as a consequence.

§ Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)
The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) concerning the number of people who are affected by unemployment give us cause to reflect on a very serious situation.
I believe that there are three causes for the Government's failure to improve the situation. One is the lack of confidence of investors, management and workers. We have had too many optimistic speeches from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in particular and their optimism has not been well-founded.
The City of Manchester is in the middle of a huge programme of clearance of old dwellings and the building of new houses. However, as the new houses go up, the factories are closing. One reason is that many factories are outdated. A great many firms operate in buildings that are not only old but are designed for a different purpose from that for which they are used.
Dawson Barfos mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick and which is to close in March with the loss of 250 jobs, is one of a group of factories in various parts of the country. The firm needs to reinvest in new machinery, but the building is not good enough for the job, so the work is going to more modern factories in the South. I am sure that this example could be repeated many times.
The local authorities in the area have put forward a sensible plan to extend the definition of derelict land to include industrial buildings and to make improvement grants available for industrial buildings as they are for houses. That plan was put to the Government five months ago. In view of the Government's failure to live up to their optimistic promises and forecasts, I urge them to accept that plan now.
I have one final point. There has been a rapid decline in the number of apprenticeships. Many of these are now taken up not by school leavers but by boys whose apprenticeships are interrupted by redundancy. I urge the Government to make more training available, to remind 1249 firms that there will not be any 15-yearolds leaving school next year and to stockpile apprentices now.

§ Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)
Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him to consider the future of the aircraft industry in the Manchester area? Would he join me in asking the Minister for an undertaking about Hawker-Siddeley, which the Minister has not given in spite of being asked for it as much as three months ago?

§ Mr. Marks
Certainly, and most definitely in connection with the Hawker-Siddeley 748.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on his success in obtaining this debate. He has, however, been less than fair to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) and Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor), with whom I frequently discuss the problems of Manchester and who, the hon. Member may rest assured, are just as concerned about the city's problems as he is. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Withington earlier this afternoon and I understand perfectly why he cannot be here now.
This is by no means the first occasion when the unemployment problems of Manchester have been raised in the House in recent months, and I recognise the great concern of both the hon. Member for Ardwick and his colleagues as well as of those outside this House who are very rightly concerned with the level of unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area.
Let me assure hon. Members at once that the Government are fully alive to the problems of Manchester and there is no question of complacency on their part over the situation there. The present unemployment figures are unacceptably high, and we fully appreciate what these mean for those who are at present without jobs. But in facing the realities of the situation, and acknowledging the considerable impact which major closures and redundancies have had on the area in recent years, I do not share the despondency and gloom expressed by the hon. Member for Ardwick and his hon. 1250 Friends. To begin with we have to accept that Manchester, in common with all other major industrial areas, has been undergoing structural change and rationalisation, consequent upon the need to meet the challenge of new technologies as well as to meet cost inflation.
I certainly do not seek to minimise the substantial number of redundancies that have taken place or may take place in the future, but the fact that most of the larger ones have been the subject of long notice or have been phased over a period of several months has at least lessened their impact. It has enabled many of the workers concerned to find other jobs in the extensive Manchester travel-to-work area, in which the full services of the Department of Employment are constantly available, especially in regard to major closures. I appreciate that natural wastage has played a part in reducing the number of redundancies and that the generous redundancy payments have also assisted to cushion their impact.
The Manchester district has shown a remarkable resilience in recent years. This fact is borne out by Manchester's unemployment levels. An analysis of wholly unemployed in the Manchester travel-to-work area as compared with those of Great Britain during the past 18 months shows that except for December and January the monthly percentage rates for Manchester have remained consistently below those for Great Britain. In December and January the wholly unemployed rate rose above the national rate by 0.1 per cent. and 0.2 per cent. respectively. As I have already stressed the present situation gives no grounds for complacency, but it shows that Manchester's unemployment has closely followed the national trend. The current wholly unemployed rate of 4.3 per cent. is, moreover, well below the corresponding rate for the North-West Region as a whole of 4.8 per cent.
We have heard tonight of the fears that recent job losses spell the decline of a great industrial and commercial centre, and that the Government's industrial development certificate policy seriously inhibits further industrial development. I cannot emphasise too strongly that these fears are groundless. Despite heavy job losses, Manchester has a wide 1251 and strongly based variety of manufacturing industries as well as a large services sector. In our natural anxiety for the 4.3 per cent. unemployed we should not forget the 95.7 per cent. of Mancunians who are working and working more efficiently and more productively than ever before.
When looking at the problems of Manchester we must try and see the picture in proper perspective. We are not considering a small district having only one or two industries on which the livelihood of the local population depends. We are dealing with a great and proud centre of industrial strength, and long-standing commercial tradition with wide and strongly-based industries, comprising not only older industries, such as textiles, but those dependent on modern engineering technologies. Its insured population is about 700,000, about 120,000 of whom are employed in a wide variety of engineering and other metal-working industries; 30,000 in clothing; rather less than 20,000 in textiles; 26,000 in the oil and chemical industries; 30,000 in food, drink and tobacco; and many thousands in the paper, printing and publishing trades.
In addition there is a very substantial and growing services sector employing about 380,000, of whom 150,000 are engaged in public administration, education, medical and other professional services. It is clear that with Manchester's excellent location and its commercial reputation the potential for further development of the services sector alone will be very considerable in the climate of an expanding business economy.
I turn now to the subject of Manchester's industrial development. Here the need speaks for itself. But it is quite clear that local industrial development has not stood still. Some of the references which have been made, in the House and elsewhere, to the policy followed by successive Governments in regard to the issuing of industrial development certificates for Manchester imply that a totally restrictive policy is applied.
Whatever the position was under the previous Administration, this is not so now. Applications for I.D.C.s are sympathetically considered, in full recognition of the close ties to the Manchester area which many new projects are likely 1252 to have. This is borne out by the fact that from January, 1970, to December, 1971, a total of 161 I.D.C.s were approved for the Manchester area. Applicants estimated that these new projects would give rise to nearly 3,000 new jobs, over 2,000 of them for men, when they were completed and fully manned. Over the same period only one I.D.C. was refused.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
Perhaps I may interrupt this dreary monologue. The hon. Gentleman is not replying to the debate. Will he address himself to the suggestion that he should visit the Manchester area at the earliest possible date?

§ Mr. Grant
I am answering the point about I.D.C.s which was specifically raised by the hon. Member for Ardwick. I emphasised that over that period only one I.D.C. was refused.
I repeat that, subject only to the paramount requirements of the development areas, our policy has been liberally interpreted in the Manchester area and full account taken of the ties that projects may have to the area. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to pay full regard to the employment needs of Manchester in this respect.
Hon. Members have rehearsed the case for intermediate area status for Manchester, and I can assure them that their points have been carefully noted.
I would, however, remind hon. Members that it is only in recent months that Manchester's total registered unemployment has risen marginally above the national rate, and at 4.3 per cent. in January it remains well below the rate for the North-West Region as a whole. I cannot accept the contention of the hon. Member for Ardwick that these figures are clear evidence of regional decline. With its wide diversity of existing industry and its strong base of commercial activity which is well capable of expansion, Manchester is well placed to feel quickly the benefits of the expansion in the economy which the Government are seeking to bring about.

§ Mr. Charles R. Morris
This is the same speech as we heard last time.

§ Mr. Grant
I do not have to remind hon. Members in great detail of what has been done: the reductions in taxation, the improvements in capital allowances, cuts 1253 in purchase tax and the halving of S.E.T. In addition we have reduced Bank Rate and abandoned controls on hire purchase—everything the North-West Industrial Development Association said was required. This is precisely what we have done. This was what we needed to give an upturn to the economy.
On 7th February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced measures to enable eyesores to be removed in the assisted and derelict land clearance areas, both to improve the appearance of these areas and to provide employment. Manchester, as part of the North West Region Derelict Land Clearance Area, should benefit from these schemes, which have to be completed by June, 1973.

§ Mr. Charles R. Morris
This speech is intolerable.

§ Mr. Grant
Further evidence of the Government's determination to deal with unemployment has been demonstrated by the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment concerning plans for greatly expanding industrial training facilities. As hon. Members will know, the setting up of a new Government training centre for Trafford Park was announced last July. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members do not like this, but they are going to get it whether they like it or not.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)
Order. Hon. Members have had their say. They must allow the Minister to reply.

§ Mr. Grant
In that connection it is very encouraging to note that plans for the completion of the two plants by Shell Chemicals are going ahead and that completion is expected by the end of 1973.
I should also like to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Man 1254 chester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), if he can take the trouble to pay attention.

§ Mr. Rose
I have been waiting three months for an answer.

§ Mr. Grant
The placing of further Nimrod orders with Hawker-Siddeley, which the Defence Department recently announced, will provide work at both the firm's factories for some time to come.
By the time the Government's measures have worked through the economy—

§ Mr. Rose
Nonsense.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) must not address the House from a sedentary position. He has had his say already.

§ Mr. Rose
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Grant
No.
By the time the Government's measures have worked through the economy I have no doubt that Manchester's many advantages, including location and the traditional skills of her people, will have attracted investment for which there is a viable future. I hope that everyone with the interests of Manchester at heart, including hon. Members opposite, will do everything they can to encourage local initiative whenever and wherever possible.