§ 11.20 p.m.
§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)I bring to the attention of the House, as is my right and privilege, an acute concern throughout my constituency and the Londot resulting from basic economic changes. That acute concern is not about a sudden disaster or some cataclysmic action which has taken place. It is about a vital and fundamental change in the economic structure of my area which has been taking place over the last 15 years. Unlike the sudden disease of cancer in the National Health Service to which all the drama is attached, this problem goes on and causes fundamental changes which alter the social structure and the responsibility of local government.
Since I entered this House in 1959 I have witnessed a complete change in the 1489 economic structure in two major areas where there are industrial estates—Park Royal and Alperton—which contain many major factories and small engineering concerns. The giants remain—Guinness, Heinz Baked Beans, United Biscuits, Rolls-Royce and London buses. But some of them, instead of enlarging, are inclined to shift. One has gone to Southall and another to the North on an IDC. Although the employment situation remains comparatively steady, there is no new intake of school leavers into those companies.
In the Willesden area—which I originally represented in this House—since 1972 there have been 40 closures, six of them in January this year, with a loss of 3,822 jobs. The Department of Employment has had 133 redundancy notifications in the same time with a loss of nearly 10,000 jobs.
In Wembley, which is more of a residential area, except for the Alperton industrial estate and some parts of North Wembley, there have been seven closures involving just under 1,000 jobs. The Department of Employment has had 26 redundancy notices involving a total of 2,500 jobs.
I am not only raising unemployment as a major problem about which I hope the Government will do something. Indeed, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, is on the Front Bench, because this problem covers a number of Government Departments. I am seeking to stimulate a combined operation between a number of Departments where the responsibility lies in an attempt to provide a solution to this problem. My hon. Friend faced a similar debate last week, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) referred to similar problems there. My hon. Friend pointed to concern about the change in the social mix in his area and said that if we were not careful our areas would become one large industrial warehouse in place of skilled engineering.
One problem is that often the skilled engineer, who is still capable of making a great contribution to productivity, at the age of 53 or 54 becomes a window cleaner. That has happened in the last 10 years in my constituency. People with roots in the area do not move out. If there are no jobs calling for their skills, 1490 they change to something less skilled and less well paid.
The population decline is not reflected in my area, because it has one of the largest immigrant communities in the country. We have always had a fluctuating population in the early years of settlement. We have probably taken in more Ugandans and Kenyan Asians than any other area. This also applies in the early years to constituencies in Padding-ton, Ealing, Kensington and Acton. Racial tension hardly exists in my area because of the activity of the Community Relations Commission. But many young coloured teenagers who were born in the constituency find that skilled jobs are not available. They get a chip on their shoulders because they think that they get only unskilled jobs not for economic reasons but because of the colour of their skin.
In July 1975 there was 2 million sq. ft. of empty factory space in my constituency. I commend the GLC's efforts to convert them to smaller workshops and factories. A private developer has converted the Old Unigate site into smaller factories. There are many non-conforming factories, however, in old Willesden, which was built up in Queen Victoria's day. It would help if factories were shifted from residential areas to empty space on industrial estates. What support can my borough get to convert some of that space for smaller factories?
It is sometimes said that we must accept this position because of the world recession. But this problem has existed in my constituency for 12 years and the recession has not lasted that long. Over eight years ago, 2,000 jobs were lost when Sir Arnold Weinstock rationalised the AEI factory, which made transformers for the Kariba Dam, and absorbed it into the GEC complex. The Wembley firm of Witton James is under threat of being axed.
There is great concern among my constituents who work at Associated Automation, where there is a possibility of 400 redundancies. It is hoped that that factory will not close, because it is a traditional area of employment. The first telephones in the Palace of Westminster were made by Halls Telephones, the forerunner of Associated Automation.
The company now makes stamp machines, coin boxes and telephone 1491 equipment for the Post Office. Has the Minister any influence with Sir William Ryland? These redundancies could be avoided if, instead of diversifying, the Post Office increased the work which is done by Associated Automation. Councillor Norman Howard, one of our GLC councillors, is also an official of the Post Office Engineering Union. He claims that there could be enough additional work from the Post Office to avoid so many redundancies. GEC seems to be concerned only with profitability, and rationalisation. Profitability counts most and productivity counts least. I hope that the Government will look into this.
I support the general case of the GLC, which is based on seven points: a relaxation of IDC policy; relief from the constraints on publicity for London; selective assistance to industry in London; representation of London's industrial situation on the National Enterprise Board; support for the development and improvement of London's infrastructure; consultation with the council where there are implications for industrial employment in the council's area; and a Government-appointed committee of inquiry to examine regional development policies and propose policies for alleviating high unemployment in non-assisted areas.
It is not simply a question of numbers. We want a balance of skills and a balanced community. We do not want a large area of unskilled people. My community can be alive and breathing—a living personality as it was years ago—only if it has a social life and good amenities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pleads for the ability to take advantage of the upturn in trade. I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that my area can now—not when the upturn takes place—have the facilities to take advantage and become a spearhead of economic production leading to prosperity.
§ 11.31 p.m.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has raised a subject which has concerned him for a considerable time, as it has concerned a number of London Members. He will appreciate that some time ago the Secretary of State met leaders of the GLC and others to 1492 discuss these specific problems. I have had the opportunity to meet members of the GLC to discuss some of the issues raised tonight.
We had a similar debate to this last week so we now have a fair appreciation of the situation in London. These matters concern not only me but my other hon. Friends in the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment. The points that my hon. Friend has made tonight will be borne in mind, not only by Ministers in the Department of Industry but by Ministers in other Departments who are also concerned about the welfare of London.
My hon. Friend has described the problems created by factory closures in his constituency. He drew attention to these problems some time ago. There is no doubt that Brent has been particularly unfortunate in the number of factory closures that have occurred in recent years, but this must be seen in the context of the major changes occurring in the pattern of population and employment in the South-East.
My hon. Friend raised the question of Post Office ordering, which I shall dispose of quickly. Together with the Secretary of State for Industry I have responsibility in sponsoring terms for the Post Office. It is no part of my responsibility, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to assume such a responsibility, which is contrary to the spirit of the 1969 Act, to consult the Post Office over ordering. I am sure that the Chairman of the Post Office Board and his colleagues will read my hon. Friend's comments and bear them in mind. I turn to the general situation in London. Between 1961 and 1974 manufacturing employment in London declined by nearly half a million—and we are conscious of the seriousness of that—while employment in the rest of the South-East increased by about 900,000, a quarter of the jobs being in manufacturing. These substantial changes over a relatively short time have taken place in a situation in which London's population has also been in decline, but over a much longer period. As with employment, the population of the rest of the South-East has been increasing. This redistribution of people and jobs in the South-East is obviously 1493 interrelated. In this period the growth of population in the new towns, the expanding towns, South Hampshire and the Home Counties has attracted industry out of London. However, it would be misleading of me to suggest that the decline in manufacturing employment in London arises from the movement of industry—either to the new and expanding towns or to the assisted areas—because of the Government's regional policies, as someone has suggested.
My Department has recently studied in depth the decline in industrial employment in London between 1966 and 1974. In that period manufacturing employment fell by over 380,000. But only 27 per cent. of these jobs were lost as a result of firms moving from London to other parts of the country. I should point out, indeed, that only 9 per cent. were the result of movement to the assisted areas.
The main cause of the decline in employment, accounting for nearly half the total reduction, was the simple closure of premises without any corresponding opening elsewhere. This is the pattern in my hon. Friend's own borough, where about 17,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost due to factory closures in this period—of which 68 per cent. were complete closures, as my hon. Friend mentioned. I think that my hon. Friend will accept some of these closures arise from the present economic recession. Once the economy revives—and there are now some hopeful signs of this beginning to happen—industry in London will be among the first to benefit. I take the point made by my hon. Friend, that when we have an upturn boroughs such as his should be in a position to take advantage of it and take up the challenges afforded by it.
I recognise, however, that this excessively large closure rate among manufacturing firms in London is not simply the result of our current economic difficulties; it is promarily the result of the unfavourable environment in which many of them have to operate. Too many firms in London have had to operate in old, inefficient premises, where there is no room to expand when the need arises and where there are all too often the added burdens of traffic congestion, labour shortages, high rents and rates. I can assure my hon. Friend that 1494 we are conscious of these things and bear them in mind within the Department.
I have to say, however, that the solution to some of these problems is in the hands of the GLC and the London boroughs. I take my Friend's point about the seven points of the GLC—of which we are very conscious—and we shall expect to get co-operation from the GLC in these matters.
Despite the heavy loss of manufacturing industry in London over the last decade or so, it remains one of the most important concentrations of industry in the country, and if our economic recovery is to blossom it is vital that London's industry should be efficient and able to flourish and invest. The Government are anxious to see all industry invest at present. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's decision to make more funds available for companies who are prepared to bring forward deferred capital projects and for companies in certain sectors of industry to invest in new plant and machinery. All of these measures are, of coure, available to London firms, and they can be of substantial assistance.
My hon. Friend raised the point—I rather expected he would, because it has been raised by the GLC—about IDC control in the London area. It has been suggested by some people that IDC control is preventing industrial development in London. Frankly, I do not believe that to be so. The IDC control is certainly an essential part of the Government's regional policies, whose aim is to encourage firms able to expand and develop in the assisted areas. I assure my hon. Friend that this control is operated most sensitively. As proof of that, since 1971 94 per cent. of all IDC applications have been approved for London as a whole.
The Government have in the last year made two relaxations in the IDC control which should be of value to London in its present circumstances. My hon. Friend may remember that my hon. Friend and predecessor as Minister of State, the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), told the House in February 1975 that no IDC application of less than 10,000 square feet would be refused in London without having been seen personally by the Secretary of State. That 1495 system has been operating since then. My hon. Friend may also remember my statement to the House last month when in expressing my concern at the number of empty and obsolete factories in the major conurbations, I outlined the experimental scheme we are introducing which will permit IDCs to be issued—subject to certain conditions—for the speculative replacement of these obsolete buildings by modern industrial premises. This scheme should facilitate industrial renewal in the older parts of cities such as London, and I hope that industrialists and developers in Brent, as in the rest of the metropolis, will take full advantage of this scheme. My hon. Friend has mentioned the high levels of unemployment in London and particularly within his constituency. He has done this vigorously not only tonight but on many occasions with me, both publicly and privately. I realise that unemployment in his part of London has risen markedly over recent months, but it should be remembered that London still has a lower rate of unemployment than almost any other part of the United Kingdom. With an unemployment rate of 3.7 per cent., London's rate is well below the national level of 5.6 per cent. and even further below the rate of Scotland and Wales. Even within London the employment exchange areas of Wembley and Willesden, which cause my hon. Friend great concern, have fared somewhat better than Greater London as a whole in terms of the increase in unemployment in the current recession. I am not trying to underrate the difficulties experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents at the present 1496 time, but merely to put them within a wider perspective of London as a whole.
My hon. Friend expressed his concern for the future of industry in Brent and London. I can assure him that we examine very closely the changes at all major London establishments, and under the Government's new Employment Protection Act we shall have at least 90 days' advance warning where 100 or more redundancies are concerned. This advance notice will give Departments and agencies the opportunity to consider whether any special scheme is appropriate or practicable in every case.
My hon. Friend will be pleased, as I am, that the actions of the present Government have ensured that appropriate warnings of industrial difficulties have now to be given in time for action to be taken. The National Enterprise Board and the new arrangements for planning agreements will also strengthen our hands in anticipating and dealing with future problems of this nature.
I appreciate the very real concern of my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the London area about the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined this evening and at other times. I can only conclude by repeating the undertaking I gave to our hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) in the House last week, that Ministers of all Departments will continue to co-operate with my hon. Friend and all London Labour Members of Parliament, because we all want to see a prosperous London in the future.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.