HC Deb 19 October 1973 vol 861 cc653-64

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson (Accrington)

The Minister will be aware that I do not raise the problems of North-East Lancashire in any party political sense. I have raised them and initiated debates under successive Governments—

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Davidson

I raise the matter again because the problems that have haunted North-East Lancashire ever since the Industrial Revolution remain with the area. I do not wish to indulge in overemotional or exaggerated language, because it is counter-productive. I do not want to do anything that would give those whom we would welcome in the area—new industry and those providing a diversification of industry in particular—the impression that it is bleak, grey and depressing. It is none of those things. But it would be foolish and equally counter-productive to pretend that it does not have basic, inherent problems.

The two most glaring problems which face North-East Lancashire, and which have faced it for many years, are migration away from the area and obsolescence. I hope that in any discussion about aid for the area, or for any region, those two criteria will be acknowledged far more than unemployment as being among the main reasons for distributing aid.

Having located the two areas of most concern, I should like to bring them up to date in the light of the reports I have read in the Press—I know nothing more about them—about the possible aid from European funds to be given to the older industrial regions in the European Economic Community. I do not want to debate the rights or wrongs of European policy. I should be ruled out of order if I did. But I should like to know what the criteria will be for the distribution of those funds. The Minister may well not be able to give me the answer today.

I give the Minister advance warning that North-East Lancashire will expect to be given high priority on the basis agreed for the distribution of the funds. The area would want that basis to reflect the high degree of migration and the whole problem of urban renewal. These should be the two main criteria deciding the amount of funds distributed under the grant.

I mentioned that migration was a serious and continuing problem in North-East Lancashire. I wonder whether the Minister has seen the latest census figures. I am no statistician, and I have not read them in detail, but the summary indicates that the problem in the area is serious. The up-to-date figures confirm that migration and loss of population, and therefore an imbalance in the age of population, still constitute a serious problem in North-East Lancashire as opposed to other parts of Lancashire.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the report of the study group on Oldham, one of several study groups set up by the Government. It is a very good and very full report. The problems of Oldham are very similar to those of any town in North-East Lancashire, as the report points out. They are certainly the problems of Accrington, Burnley, Blackburn, Nelson and Colne and the rest.

I admit that this and other Governments have directed grant aid to help with urban renewal. However, there is a need not only to continue this aid but to increase it in varying ways. Unless there is a massive public investment programme in the towns in North-East Lancashire the problem will continue year in, year out, and the full economic potential of the region will not be achieved.

Another problem of vital concern to North-East Lancashire is that of communication. The Minister will be aware that I shall be referring to the construction of the Calder Valley fast route—the M65. We had an assurance from the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that the whole of this motorway, which is essential for the economic, industrial and commercial health of the area, would be commenced in 1974 and completed in 1977–78.

The proposals have now been somewhat watered down in the sense that the length of the motorway from the east of Burnley to Colne is now to be a two, not a three-lane route as we had hoped. This has been accepted with some reluctance by the local authorities. If they had not accepted it, there might have been a substantial delay. I should like an assurance that there will be no delay either directly or indirectly to the start of the fast route and that we can expect a physical start to be made on the Burnley-Colne section certainly in late 1974 or—I shall be generous—early 1975.

The North-East Lancashire Development Committee, the local authorities, and general opinion in the region attach great importance to an early start being made on the connection from the Eden-field by-pass to the Calder Valley fast route through Accrington and east of Accrington because, on the completion of the Bury easterly by-pass, this will give the North-East Lancashire area a further direct connection with the M62 and, thereby, the national network.

I should also like some early indication on the part of the Government that they will agree to an extension of the M65 forward across into Yorkshire to meet the proposed Airedale motorway, thereby giving North-East Lancashire a much needed direct route to the eastern seaports.

The Minister will know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House representing North-East Lancashire had strong objections to the construction of the Central Lancashire new town. It was approved by the previous Government and the go ahead was given by this Government, but certain assurances were given. We were assured that we would be provided with a motorway, intermediate area status, and grant aid for urban renewal. I should like to be assured that nothing will be done to ensure that the Central Lancashire new town is given preference over the older areas of North-East Lancashire. This would certainly happen if there were a delay on the construction of the motorway or if, as has happened, the extension of intermediate area status included the new town. We were very disappointed about that.

We in North-East Lancashire are disappointed, too, because an assurance has been given that the Central Lancashire new town will be eligible for some of the civil servants who are to be dispersed from London under the proposals of the Hardman Committee, whereas it had appeared that that was not to happen. I am aware, of course, that the Government's plans are not final, that there have been discussions between the Minister for the Civil Service, his officials and those in North-East Lancashire, and that the situation is fluid and in the end we may be lucky and get some of these people. We regard it as necessary to get these jobs in our area if school-leavers are to remain there and if there is to be a diversification of job opportunities.

I mentioned communications and dealt with road travel. Perhaps I may now deal with the appalling rail services in the North-East Lancashire area. The rail service from Preston to London is excellent—the inter-City service is one of which the country can be proud—and it now takes only about three hours to get from London to Preston.

But once one gets to Preston, one runs into difficulties. It takes almost as long to travel the 20 miles from Preston to Accrington as it does to travel from London to Preston, which is absurd. The services are dreary and depressing. I am not blaming the local management, which is aware of the problems, but it seems almost as though people are being encouraged not to travel by rail. The last trains are ridiculously early in the evening. The same sort of problem arises over travel between North-East Lancashire and Manchester.

The Town Clerk of Accrington, Mr. Nigel MacGregor, soon to be clerk of the new district authority, is well aware of the problems and has asked me to raise them in the House, which I have now done, and I pay tribute to Mr. Bryan Whittle, the Town Clerk of Burnley and Honorary Secretary of the North-East Lancashire Development Committee, for the help that he has given in highlighting some of the problems which he considers to be of particular concern in the area.

I appreciate the Minister's having come here to reply to the debate, but I hope that he will not resort to the usual refuge of saying that the unemployment figures are low in North-East Lancashire. We know that already. They are invariably low, and one reason is the drift of young people from the area. I hope that the debate has highlighted the difficulties and that the Minister will pass on to his colleagues what I have said about the twin problems of migration and obsolescence.

There is an ageing population in Accrington, and, because of the imbalance, problems have arisen during the last two or three months because of the closure of one post office and the threatened closure of a sub-post office. Such action is particularly damaging in an area with a high proportion of old people. Being a hilly area, the amenities are less attractive than they might otherwise be.

I do not want to go on and on. I could refer to other amenities which have gradually disappeared. I could refer in greater detail to the closure of the parcels depot. All in all, the problem of migration is perhaps the most serious, and in assessing what aid should be given to a region that aspect of the matter should be given top priority. If it were, I am sure that North-East Lanca- shire would be given the maximum amount of aid.

4.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow)

I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) for setting out so reasonably and yet so clearly the comprehensive picture of the problems as he sees them affecting the area which he represents. I certainly acknowledge to him that he has done this no matter what position in the House he has happened to occupy, whether on the Government or Opposition benches. He is right in acknowledging the fact that this is shared by colleagues of his in the area from both sides of the House. It is certainly not a picture of which the Government are unaware.

The hon. Member has produced quite a list of problems. I shall try to answer as many of the points as possible. Post office closures are, perhaps, problems which I shall have to leave to be dealt with in correspondence by someone else. I am immensely grateful to him for not inviting me to debate in 15 minutes the merits of our membership of the European Economic Community.

We are aware of the problems. The unacceptable rate of outward migration undoubtedly tends to drain the community of many of its most enterprising members. In a large degree it no doubt reflects the lack of opportunities in the service sector. It is a little difficult to be conclusive from the available figures. I have looked at the preliminary results of the census. The 1966–71 returns show a drop in net outward migration. Just what the reasons for that may be it is too early to tell. In 1961–66 the net loss was about 7,000. In 1966–71 it looks like being less. It would be interesting to have these figures studied to see what we can learn from them. But I am not able to give firm conclusions.

I recognise also that the 19th century heritage of housing and industrial stock represents considerable disadvantages, though there are some notable improvements which can be pointed to. The lack of an adequate variety of employment opportunities is an important factor.

I shall turn shortly to the points that the hon. Member has raised. I should like, first, to try to dispel any impression which the debate might create inadvertently that the picture in North-East Lancashire is one of unrelieved gloom. I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish that impression to go out from the debate. Labour relations in the area are good. There is a skilled labour force. Community pride is strong. Unemployment throughout the area is low. I am not making a point of that but it is a fact. In many places unemployment is below the national and regional averages. The latest figures that I have seen, for September 1973, show 1.7 per cent. of the insured population being registered as unemployed, of whom one-third, in Accrington, were over 55 years old. That is out of a total of about 500 registered unemployed. Registered vacancies in North-East Lancashire have trebled in the past year and are now at a high figure of 4,700. of which 2,600 are male jobs.

There is also ample evidence that the measures of the Industry Act coupled with our policy of stimulating national growth have had a beneficial effect on North-East Lancashire. Since March 1972 industrial development certificates for 3.8 million square feet for projects expected to provide 4,300 jobs have been granted, and offers have been made and applications are under consideration for selective financial assistance for projects involving nearly 3,000 jobs. There is, of course, some overlap between the two categories, but even so it is clear that projects involving between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs are likely to go ahead in North-East Lancashire. The three DTI advance factories in the area, at Haslingden, Nelson and Burnley, have all been taken up, and with their products, vehicle clutches, cigarette filters and book binding, will provide useful diversification of the industrial pattern. There is also some evidence that office developments have been going ahead in the area, particularly in Burnley and Blackburn. New office developments will be eligible for our new office incentives which provide up to £800 per job moved to the assisted areas up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the employment in the project, and up to three years rent free or equivalent assistance for building in intermediate areas.

These welcome developments suggest that North-East Lancashire has not suffered from the extension of intermediate area status to the whole of the North-West Region.

I should not like it to be thought that the area is missing out on new technology. I know that the Lucas Aerospace factory at Burnley, for instance—in which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) takes a lively interest—has a workforce of about 2,400 people, 60 per cent. of whom are working on sub-contract work for Rolls-Royce on the RB211 engine, and significant research and development work is carried out there with support from Government funds.

Perhaps anticipating next year's developments, when the boundaries between Yorkshire and Lancashire suffer some radical alteration, bringing Barnoldswick into Lancashire—no doubt a matter of intense local feeling—it is fair to remind the House that at Barnoldswick, the Rolls-Royce factory has a labour force of 2,500, again working on the advanced engines one of whose initials gives honour to the town and where, incidentally, the Whittle engine was developed in a former weaving shed. So that town is ahead in the diversification stakes.

The Department of the Environment also recognises the problems of the area. As an intermediate area, it gets 75 per cent. grant for derelict land clearance and the higher rate for housing improvement. Good progress has been made with the clearance and replacement of the worst slums and local authorities in the area have shown real initiative in improving older housing.

There have been attractive developments of central and shopping areas, not only in the large towns of Burnley and Blackburn but also in the smaller towns of Accrington and Nelson. The area has also been a major beneficiary of Operation Eyesore, as I know from having seen a recent report by a team who visited there and who were most surprised to see how clean and attractive the area is. So that is the background, although the hon. Member's points are not unfair.

The proposals for the EEC Regional Development Fund and the criteria for its application have recently been put forward by the Commission for consideration by the Council of Ministers. North-East Lancashire was listed among the places which will be eligible for assistance, but we do not yet know—in other words, it has not yet been decided—how the funds will be spent or administered. However, I note and will pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the criteria of migration and obsolescence and his emphasis on the priority which he believes should be accorded to the area. With national regional aids, the intermediate areas have been classified as "central areas" under Article 154 of the Treaty of Rome, but this will not affect the assistance for those areas which is at present available.

The hon. Member also mentioned the Calder Valley highway. We are aware of the importance of this scheme for North-East Lancashire. I can stress that it is not affected by the postponements announced recently, which applied only to the period 1974–75, whereas, under the statutory procedures which are now the next stage for this project, the earliest that the road could be started is early 1975 and the probable starting date is much more likely to be 1975–76. But the hon. Member will know—because he has had a copy of the letter—that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has written to hon. Members representing the area, promising to take special account of the probable contribution of this road to the development of North-East Lancashire as a whole. My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly note what has been said again today on this subject. I know that he is being pressed on it by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) and others.

As for the Central Lancashire new town, if I may use this phrase, it has not yet got off the ground—in other words, one could say that the footings have not even been laid—so it is impossible to be sure of its effects on North-East Lancashire. We are still considering the master plan and have only reached the stage of acquiring land for housing, but we have no reason to think that North-East Lancashire will suffer from the new town; there are indications that any effects there will be beneficial.

The distances involved between the hon. Member's area and that in which the new town is to be developed are not so great as to rule out commuting. Although there may be jobs on offer 10 or 20 miles from the homes of his constituents, it does not necessarily follow that they will not be as able to compete for those jobs as anyone else. It could be argued that, being on the spot, they will be able to be first in when the jobs come up.

There could also be spin-off benefits in the form of additional sub-contracting work for North-East Lancashire firms and from the general stimulus given to places adjoining. But the development plans for the new town are flexible and we shall certainly keep North-East Lancashire's needs in mind in proceeding with it.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Hardman Report. In the debate earlier this week, the hon. Member for Burnley and others expressed their views forcibly, and there is no doubt about the concern felt about the need to increase employment opportunities in that area. But the Hardman proposals are still under consideration, just as we are giving careful consideration to the representations which have been and are being made. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department has been seeing deputations, including one from North-East Lancashire, and he is well aware of all the considerations involved.

But it is right to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Hardman recommendations were based on the need for dispersal to a small number of large places so as to maintain efficiency. This is a reasonable criterion. But if there should be dispersal of jobs—this brings me back to the point I made earlier—to the central Lancashire new town, this should not rule out the possibility of some of the new jobs going to people in Accrington and elsewhere who are looking for office work.

The hon. Gentleman complained about rail services. I cannot say that I have ever travelled by rail to Preston. It seems to be a pilgrimage one makes north by road, and I must confess that, generally, having reached Preston, I turn left towards Blackpool rather than right to what I am persuaded may be more attractive places. If we should have cause to go north next year, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will offer to show me his constituency. I would like to see it for myself. I do not believe that it is as remote as sometimes we are led to believe.

Mr. Davidson

I shall be delighted to take the hon. Gentleman round—as long as we go by car and not by train.

Mr. Onslow

I suggest that we might make the journey by road. It might be too soon for the new road to be open, but we can see the route on the map.

I recognise the importance of communications. The hon. Gentleman did not mention air communications and he should not rule them out. I believe that there is scope for the development of a regional network of services to areas like his, which many visitors to this country refuse to believe exist because they seem to be so many hours away in travelling time.

I must not anticipate later debates, but I must stress that what I have said about regional networks does not mean that I am endorsing the idea of a regional dispersal of international air traffic. I think I might carry the hon. Gentleman with me if I say that I doubt whether visitors to this country could be persuaded to accept Liverpool Town Hall as a sub- stitute for Buckingham Palace in their photographs. I am sure, also, that the complaints we already get about the growing noise nuisance at Manchester as the number of movements grows would greatly increase if there were evidence that Manchester was likely to become a contender for the Maplin stakes.

I am conscious of not having covered everything raised by the hon. Gentleman in his very agreeable speech in the depth it deserves. But I give him a firm undertaking that all the points he has raised and which I have not fully answered will be carefully considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends, both in my Department and in the others with an interest in and a responsibility for the economic progress of North-East Lancashire. I hope that by the time I take up his offer of a conducted tour we shall see some real results.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.