HC Deb 13 May 1975 vol 892 cc420-30

11.44 p.m.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas (Monmouth)

Students of the Hardman Report on the Dispersal of Government Work from London will be particularly interested in this debate. I am delighted to see that there are a few stalwart Members who have this interest at heart and are present tonight. They will also be interested in the earlier report of Sir Gilbert Flemming in 1962–63. This is a subject which has exercised the mind of Government for some time. Tonight it is concerned with the relocation of the laboratory of the Government Chemist.

I suppose that there will be those who find this very important institution in our Civil Service as strange as possibly the Official Solictor was to us some years ago, but none the less the Government Chemist exists and does a very important job of work.

My particular interest in the matter dates back at least to 1972, when there occurred on the borders of my constituency an event which was met with great dismay, for reasons that had led to the loss from our community of a very large number of highly talented people and of job opportunity, too. It was at that time that the fibres division of Imperial Chemical Industries, which operates a large complex, announced the closure of its research facilities at its Pontypool site.

I should like at this point to mention the unavoidable absence from the Chamber of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) due to a temporary illness. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.

At that time the hon. Member for Pontypool and I protested very strongly to the company about its decision to remove its research work to Harrogate, where it had decided, for economic reasons, that it had to concentrate all its research on one site. We regretted that decision for the reasons to which I have referred. It meant that although the company was increasing the opportunity for jobs in the factory side, the manufacturing side, job opportunities were being missed for young technicians and technologists, and we were losing something in the social mix because of the high-powered nature of some of the people who had to work in this very complicated area of research.

The hon. Member for Pontypool and I had some very harsh things to say about the company at that time. Arising, I think, partly from that and partly from the reaction of people locally, I am glad to say that a large number of groups—the company itself, the Welsh Office the Department of Industry, the county planning department, local councils and the trades unions—all worked very well to see what could be done to offset this loss to the area. They had quite considerable success. I pay tribute to all those who took part for the work they put in.

Unfortunately, this did not meet the case. As a result, new job opportunities were created but unfortunately they were largely of a clerical nature. The loss of technical and technological jobs to which I have referred was not made up. As we all know, the Hardman Committee on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs recommended that Newport should be a dispersal area for Department of Industry people. Unfortunately, once again no technical or technological jobs were involved. In the Hardman Report it was recommended that the laboratory of the Government Chemist should be moved out of Central London to Teddington because the Committee took the view—confirmed on page 187 of its report, and in the report of the Government Chemist; Hardman and the Government Chemist seem to have taken the same line here—that the laboratory … should preferably be located near to another relevant research establishment to enable common facilities to be shared". The report went on to say: a location on the periphery of London would be desirable to avoid the need for keeping an outstation in London". As a result its recommendation was that it should go to Teddington.

In July 1973 the newly-elected Labour Government took a look at the Hardman proposals and set them aside. It was announced by the Lord President in July 1974 that the Government took the view that the laboratory of the Government Chemist should go not to Teddington but to Cumbria. I stress that it is not my intention in any way to rob the people of Cumbria of much-needed jobs.

Mr. Michael Jobling (Westmorland)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Stradling Thomas

I am glad to have support for that. I appreciate that no doubt the people of Cumbria have problems of a similar nature to those of my constituents. They badly need to get the benefit of dispersal as recommended by successive Governments.

I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that I have tabled Questions and written to him but that I am not at all satisfied by the answers I have received. I took up the matter with the Secretary of State for Wales in September 1974 and in December of that year he wrote to me as follows: However, it has been decided that the Laboratory should be re-located in Cumbria and this decision was announced by the Government in July as part of our dispersal package". No reason was given why this particular department should go to Cumbria. I followed that up with a Question to the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and asked whether in view of the Government's decision it would be necessary to construct new laboratories or other new facilities. He replied that the problems in volved in moving the laboratory of the Government Chemist to West Cumbria were still being examined and that it was too early to say what facilities would be required but that new construction might well be required.

In a letter of 18th April the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Mackenzie), who is replying tonight, replied to a letter of mine.

In my letter I asked four questions. I asked: What site or sites in Cumbria has the Government got in mind? The reply was: The Government has no specific sites in mind at the present time. Following its decision that the Laboratory should be re-located in West Cumbria there have been discussions with the local authorities who are now preparing information about a number of sites which they regard as suitable. I asked What existing facilities are available? The reply was: I understand that the sites being considered by the local authorities are mostly 'green field' sites, although the possibility of utilising any appropriate existing building is not ruled out. We come now to two complicated matters which I hope the Minister will clear up because I do not wish to make a great issue of them. I asked: How many scientists, technicians and support staff will be required? There seems to be some confusion over the figures. In his reply the Minister said: The current staff of the Government Chemist located in the London Laboratory is 453 in total. In the Hardman Report there is reference to the lower figure of 330 to 358 depending on the receiving location. There has been continuing confusion about this. I understand that the number of staff has increased, due to extra work. I suspect that some of the confusion may have arisen from an impression whether we are dealing entirely with the staff in London at Cornwall House or whether, on some occasions, we are including staff in out-stations in this country and abroad, including the Far East. But since the number of people involved has a bearing on the matter, I should like to get this cleared up.

Finally, I asked him what additional facilities will have to be provided, and his reply stated that the laboratory of the Government Chemist requires modern laboratory facilities of some 20,000 square metres. I checked with his office whether a point had been misplaced, because I have ascertained that the present Cornwall House premises on the other side of the river are about 140,000 square feet. This seems to be an enormous expansion to about 215,000 square feet.

This is where the site at Pontypool comes in. There is, in fact, standing in Pontypool an empty laboratory. The people have gone to Harrogate and to other places—mainly to Harrogate, through the reorganisation by ICI Fibres Limited—and standing there are some very good and very high standard laboratory facilities. In addition to that, if there is future expansion by the Government Chemist, apart from laboratory facilities of admittedly less than 215,000 square feet there is an additional building next door with considerable facilities, including air conditioning, of 145,000 square feet. On the question of size and accommodation for staff there can be little if any doubt that these premises exist.

We are living through a time of economic crisis. There is great gloom as to the condition of sterling. There is much talk of cuts in Government expenditure. It seems to me that in such a situation the saving of candle ends is very important, and the best estimate that I can obtain—this is very difficult because laboratories can be built to various specifications—is that to build a laboratory on a greenfield site in West Cumbria would cost at least £6 million. That would be a very large candle end, in my view, and well worth the saving in the present economic state of this country.

I put it to the Minister that the Government should look once again at their decision. I stress—and I cannot overstress—that, coming as I do, from a rural area, I do not wish to rob West Cumbria of much needed jobs. I stress that the removal of the research department from Pontypool has robbed the area and left a great vacuum. It is sad to see a facility such as this left unused and that at a time of economic crisis the government should be contemplating the expenditure of £6 million when I have the assurance of the company that they would be more than ready to agree to very generous terms because they very much wish not to rip out the laboratory facilities, which, in my view, would be a complete waste.

Finally, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to this point. In the Hardman Report, and in the view of the Government Chemist himself, in his 1972 report, the present high efficiency and effectiveness of the laboratory service to the Government Departments could be impaired if it were to move further away than about one hour's travel from Central London.

The fact is that West Cumbria is 4½ hours from London—that is, by fast train to Carlisle. Pontypool is two hours by train. There is a good motorway and a good railway. In addition, high-speed trains are now travelling from Paddington to South Wales and Bristol.

I put it to the Minister no higher than this. The case I have put to him tonight certainly means that the matter merits at least further inquiry. I would ask him not to turn it down, but to put it up once again and to take a good look at it, because it seems to me that it would be a shocking waste to leave those laboratory premises empty or to convert them into offices at considerable cost and then to spend £6 million elsewhere. Cannot other means be found to help West Cumbria, so that these offices may be taken up to avoid the waste that will be involved in adhering to the present policy?

12 midnight.

Dr. John A. Cunningham (Whitehaven)

I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene briefly in this Adjournment debate. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) for his constituency, and it is very commendable that he should raise the matter as he has. However, it is a matter which was the subject of a Government decision almost a year ago.

The decision to relocate the laboratory of the Government Chemist in West Cumbria—and I stress that it is West Cumbria and not Cumbria—was fundamental. There has never been a Government Department of any kind in the old county of Cumberland and, together with it, the old county of Westmorland which now forms the Cumbria authority area. There have been no civil servants' jobs in the area. In this sense, it was a fundamental decision.

In making the decision, the Government were conscious of the need to expand the spectrum of employment opportunities in the area, and I campaigned strongly for this decision and welcomed it when it was made.

The second point is that progress has already been made in implementing the decision. Meetings have taken place, and the local authorities in Cumbria have provided briefs on different sites about education facilities, housing, and so on, so that the staff affected by this relocation can be in no doubt not only that they will be welcome in one of the most pleasant areas in the United Kingdom but also that the authorities there are giving thought to matters which will concern them.

My noble Friend the Minister of State confirmed to me recently in a letter that further progress was soon to be made on this decision, and I look to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to confirm that this is so.

If there is any criticism to be made of the decision, it is that the Government have been rather slow in implementing it. As I said just now, almost a year has elapsed since the decision was made, and those of us, like the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who are interested in the matter and represent the area could, with justification, say that we look for more progress in this matter and not for a reconsideration of the decision.

The hon. Member for Monmouth is reopening the issue because he looks to his constituency, but in South Wales there are already a very significant number of Civil Service jobs available to the community. He sees facilities there, and he looks at a Government decision and raises the matter when, in effect, it is already well progressed—not well enough for my satisfaction, but far too well for the Government to consider again what should happen.

I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm, therefore, that the laboratory will go to West Cumbria and assure me that no further delay will be countenanced in the matter.

12.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)

I want first to commend the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas) for the way in which he has drawn attention to a subject which I recognise to be one of considerable local importance to him. It goes without saying that the Government need no reminding of the problems of South Wales. We have far too many of our colleagues and, from time to time, Opposition Members reminding us of South Wales, and the problems of employment there, for that to be necessary. We are always conscious of them. May I say to the hon. Member how grateful I am for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who has been concerned about this matter and has indicated to me his concern in this debate.

The heart of this debate is the importance of transferring to the regions more of the decision making. In this, industry and Government both have an important part to play. The Department of Industry have a rôle in encouraging industry to relocate in the assisted areas. The Government, in respect of their own rôle as employers, have shown their determination to make their contribution by dispersing the work of Government Departments. Tonight we are talking about one unit of that dispersal—the laboratory of the Government Chemist.

The hon. Member reminded the House that the Hardman Report recommended that the laboratory should be on the periphery of London. In this way it concluded that the whole of the staff of 358 at that time could be moved. A location such as Teddington, near the National Physical Laboratory, would be the most suitable and would enable any facilities to be shared.

However, the House will remember that my right hon. Friend, the Lord President, said on 30th July in relation to the Hardman recommendations on dispersal that some 7,000 posts from the Ministries of Defence and Overseas Development will go to Glasgow. A similar number from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments will go to Cardiff and Newport. Some 4,500 jobs will go to the North West Region, the bulk of them to Merseyside. The headquarters of the Property Services Agency, some 3,000 posts, will go to Teeside, while the laboratory of the Government Chemist will move to West Cumbria.

This is a big dispersal exercise, the biggest undertaken in peace time, but the problem about any scheme for dispersal is that there is no one right answer. It is quite impossible to satisfy everybody. The Conservative Government commissioned studies under Sir Henry Hardman of the possible pieces of a dispersal jigsaw and where they might be sent to. The report of this study was published in June 1973. The Hardman Report itself offered three solutions: an "efficient" solution, a "regional" solution and a compromise "recommended" solution. The recommended solution would have left one-third of the jobs in the South-East region and only just over half would have gone to assisted areas.

This Government were determined to follow up the Hardman study—after a necessary period of consultation—by taking decisions and getting the detailed work of planning and execution well and truly launched. We were also determined to get better value from the whole operation by ensuring that a greater proportion of the jobs were moved to assisted areas where they are most needed. During the consultation period there was, not unexpectedly, a great deal of pressure from assisted areas to secure the benefit represented by particular bits of the dispersal programme.

We had a number of inquiries from interested local authorities, about a more radical move for the laboratory than the outskirts of London. I do not want to offend by omitting to mention particular contenders but I know that we had representations from Caithness and Sutherland, South Wales, North Wales, Cumberland, Peterlee and many others. Clearly all but one had to be disappointed, however carefully their claims were considered. Clearly, too, there was likely to be a conflict of interest between what the laboratory felt to be its essential requirements for the tasks it has to fulfil and what the various locations felt they could offer.

The hon. Member for Monmouth will realise from what I have just said that the Government have now made a firm decision concerning the relocation of the laboratory of the Government Chemist. It will be in West Cumbria. I would not deny the justification for his attempt to win a new occupant for the premises vacated by ICI Fibres Ltd. in his constituency.

Mr. Jopling

I welcome the Minister's statement that a firm decision has been made that this Department will go to West Cumbria, because that follows the efforts made by me and the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) under the previous Government to get it to go there. But in view of the compelling argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas), will he use every endeavour to get some similar technical organisation to fill those premises at Monmouth?

Mr. Mackenzie

I think we can take that for granted. I will come to that later. The Department has always had a conscience about these vacant premises. Our office in Wales asked whether these premises could be used by the Government Chemist but was told that they are not suitable. There are no other scientific blocks of work, unfortunately, in the Department which would suit these premises. But my Department will continue to seek a suitable tenant for those premises.

There are some practical reasons why the premises are less suitable than might appear for the Government Chemist. I am told—in case the hon. Member thinks that the figures are a mistake, I can assure him that I have checked them—that the laboratory will need 20,000 square metres in the first place, with room for expansion. I understand that the research and development block at Pontypool is only 5,500 square metres, but even apart from that—I know that this will disappoint the hon. Member—in any dispersal scheme there has to come a time of decision.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the number of staff. The discrepancy he mentioned is a result of staff taken on since 1st April 1972 and does not include the outstation figure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has been campaigning on this matter for a long time. A preliminary talk has been held with the Cumbria County Council about facilities in the area. There were discussions with the Department's northern regional office, which has considerable experience in the location of industry. While I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which he has expressed to me publicly and privately, that the progress towards establishing the new quarters appears to be slow, he can be assured that that is not so. We are conscious of the need to carry on here. Although there will be little to see for a considerable time, we are expecting to hold further discussions with the local authorities, including Cumbria, about possible sites in the next month. But if we plan to make a success of this transfer, it will have to be done thoroughly.

I say to the hon. Member for Monmouth and, in his absence, to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, that we understand their concern. But what we have suggested in terms of job transfers from Government Departments to South Wales for the future is worth while. Labour Governments have a worthwhile record in regard to South Wales—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.