UNEMPLOYMENT (MERSEYSIDE) (Hansard, 19 October 1976)

§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

I realise that the hour is late, but I do not believe that that can be relevant to the important matter I wish to raise concerning Merseyside. In debating the question of unemployment on Merseyside, I wish to bring to the attention of the House and of my hon. Friend the Minister the situation which exists in that region.

I accept that the Department is fully aware of the unemployment position and that the Government have taken certain measures to deal with it. It is clear that those measures are inadequate to cope with the problems facing Merseyside. For this reason I wish to raise a number of matters concerning Merseyside unemployment.

It is necessary that the House should recognise that 11.7 per cent. of the total working population in the Liverpool travel-to-work area is unemployed. The male unemployment rate stands at 13.8 per cent. and the female unemployment rate at 8.3 per cent. The latter has risen rapidly recently. The Department must pay some attention to the increase in female unemployment. In the Merseyside development area there is a total of 87,153 unemployed. In spite of measures taken by the Government, such as employment grants and premiums, the situation has not responded.

There are two main problems facing the Merseyside area. The first is the steady decline of its natural industries, by which I mean the docks industry, the distributive and warehousing industries and many of the other industries which basically have been the centre of economic activity in the area. Over the years, we have seen a decline in the traditional industries. But—and this is the second problem—there has been very little compensation for that decline in the shape of new industries coming into the area.

1393 It is recognised in the locality that much has been attempted by the Government to overcome the problems presented by areas like Merseyside. I do not suggest for one moment that the situation on Merseyside is peculiar to that area, because there are other parts of the country which are as bad as and, in some cases, slightly worse than Merseyside. However, in my view there are very important factors in the Merseyside situation which have to be taken into account.

We are not, for example, considering the introduction of industry in a period of normal economic circumstances, and by and large Government policy has been designed to deal with the normal economic circumstances of areas like Merseyside. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to recognise the present abnormal situation, and certainly they have failed to act upon it.

In addition to the normal problems of Merseyside and other large conurbations, we must attempt to deal with factors like a declining population, the introduction of new industry and the creation of a much improved social infrastructure in the area. In normal circumstances that would be difficult enough. However, the problems are worsened by the present general economic situation of the country. Although the Government's intentions have been well thought out in terms of normal situations, they have not taken into account the abnormal situation in industrial conurbations like Merseyside.

We see in the area a decline in the docks, in ship repairing, in shipbuilding and in distribution and warehousing. The economy of the area was based largely on the port transport industry. That industry has gone through tremendous revolutionary change with the introduction of new technology. It has moved from being a labour-intensive industry to become one that it capital-intensive. It has also had the additional problem of becoming a contracting industry in terms of the work force that it employs. The same is true of much of the ancillary industry on which the area has mainly depended in the post for its economic and social existence.

Although I accept that the original ideas of the Government were designed to resolve these problems, I suggest that they are no longer relevant in the present economic situation. While the Govern- 1394 ment's actions in relation to Merseyside's special development area status and through other measures would have been helpful in ordinary circumstances, they deal with only the peripheral problems in the present situation rather than the basic employment problem on Merseyside.

Despite the Government's efforts to alleviate youth unemployment, an increasing number of school leavers on Merseyside are out of work. They do not always appear in the figures issued by the Department of Employment, but surveys in my constituency indicate a tragic situation.

The Young Socialists carried out a survey in a tightly-knit community in my constituency and discovered that in 70 of every 100 homes at least one member of the family was out of work.

Figures on youth unemployment produced by the Merseyside Metropolitan Council indicate a dramatic rise in the number of young people out of work and a dramatic fall in the number of apprenticeship opportunities in the area. The unemployment figure has risen from 1,700 to more than 7,000 in 10 years and the number of apprenticeships decreased by 49 per cent. between 1969 and 1973.

Those figures indicate not only the volume of the problem but its nature. We are not only failing to attract the necessary volume of industry to the area, but we are failing to attract industry of the right quality.

I accept that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be able to answer all the points I am making; many are not directed exclusively to his Department. I hope he will recognise that in considering employment and unemployment we have also to consider such things as industry and the environment.

Government action on Merseyside—on advance factories, for example—has not dealt with the problem. In simplistic terms, our problem is that industries have been declining, moving away or becoming capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive. The whole strategy of the Government must be considered against the background of that problem and the general problem of infrastructure, which is not unique to Merseyside.

We must recognise that in the old major industrial conurbations there is 1395 now emerging a new problem—the question not only of employment and job opportunities but of declining population. The desertion of the city centres in both population and industrial terms is a long-term problem that the Government obviously must consider.

It is against that background that employment on Merseyside must be considered. I think that all of us would regard the efforts made in the locality and by the central Government as having been well-intentioned. No one could argue that either the metropolitan county or the district council has been coy in putting before the central Government ideas on how the Government should react to the situation on Merseyside.

I think that, against this background of unemployment on Merseyside, the Government have attempted to deal with the problem with the instruments available to them at the moment. My point—this has been mentioned in exchanges of letters with the Secretaries of State for Industry and Employment—is that some of the instruments which have been used are outdated and are no longer appropriate for dealing with the situation.

The problem which emerges is not purely one of employment or unemployment in the way we normally see it. Other factors are involved in a conurbation such as Merseyside. Efforts have been made in the locality, but we appear to be making no inroads on the massive problem of unemployment. Indeed, the situation is worsening day by day.

The Government must rethink their whole strategy on solving the unemployment problem in the major conurbations, particularly in the North and North-West Regions. Industries are in decline and job opportunities are constantly being reduced. The Government must take some positive action on not only the quantitative but the qualitative nature of employment in those areas.

It will not be acceptable to me for areas such as Merseyside, because of the high levels of unemployment, to be beggars rather than choosers when it comes to deciding what industries should come to those places. If we are beggars completely, we shall have no influence at all over the types of industries which will come into our area. It appears to me 1396 that Merseyside faces the prospect of having a mass of unskilled labour without any apprenticeship schemes or any of the things which indicate some kind of future in the industrial infrastructure of that part of the country. We face the prospect of having an old and unskilled populace. This will obviously have an effect upon the whole social and economic future of the region.

This is a matter not only of regional but of national concern. The Government ought now to pay attention to the fact that their remedies to deal with the problem are not working. Those remedies were designed to deal with a different problem entirely. The problem now is not merely the infrastruture on Merseyside but the contribution that it will make to the economic and social future of the United Kingdom.

I do not charge my hon. Friend with the responsibility for all the points I have raised, but I ask not only his Department but the Department of Industry to give meaningful consideration to them, particularly those concerning declining industry, the future of industry in the area, the economic structure of Merseyside and especially unemployment.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding)

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has long been a champion of the unemployed, should be warmly thanked for bringing this important subject before the House. He has suffered some personal discomfort to be here, and it has not been eased by his having to be here all night for this debate.

The situation is desperate in Liverpool, as I found on a recent visit. I was particularly concerned to find the plight of youngsters, and everyone in Liverpool—led by Councillor Bill Sefton—is very anxious to do something quickly for them. Of course, what they badly need is permanent jobs, but before talking of this I would like to say something about the contribution made by governmental measures in taking the edge off unemployment.

The Community Industry Scheme helps youngsters who even in better times would find it difficult to get jobs. It has been making an important contribution 1397 in Liverpool. We have increased the number of places available under the scheme from 200 at two centres to 400 at three centres.

The Job Creation Programme on Merseyside is also very worth while, having created 6,000 jobs. When in Liverpool, I was very impressed by a visit to Life-chance Construction. There, faced with an enormous task, the organisers are doing all they can to save youngsters—and themselves—from despair. Of course, all I spoke to wanted more money to be devoted to this work—and so I was glad that Liverpool was given an extra £1 million early in September and another £2 million later. Merseyside, indeed, will have received £13 million for this work out of a national budget of £90 million.

We hope that Merseyside will also make considerable use of the new Work Experience Scheme, which will provide a realistic introduction to working life for unemployed youngsters under the age of 19. The success of this scheme will depend to a very big extent on the cooperation of employers, and I hope very much that they will respond well.

We also hope that the employers will take advantage of the new youth employment subsidy, under which a £10 weekly allowance can be paid for up to 26 weeks to employers who take on young people under the age of 20 who have been continuously registered as unemployed for a period of six months or more. This has replaced the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, because we want to give particular help to the long-term unemployed, of which Liverpool has more than its share. These schemes have helped nearly 2,500 young people on Merseyside.

These, then, are the measures which particularly have helped the young. But we have also been concerned to alleviate the situation for others. The Temporary Employment Subsidy Scheme has already saved the jobs of about 6,500 people on Merseyside.

Our new Job Release Scheme should also give help. Under the scheme, men over 64 and women over 59 in full-time employment in assisted areas, including Liverpool, will from 1st January next be offered an allowance of £23 per week free of tax until they reach pensionable age, provided that they leave their jobs and 1398 are replaced by unemployed workers. It will also apply to the unemployed if they cease looking for work.

The unemployment situation in Liverpool will also be assisted, both in the short and longer terms, by training. There are far too many unskilled in the inner areas of the city, and these are far more vulnerable to unemployment than are the skilled.

With the increased funds, the Training Services Agency has been able to expand its Training Opportunities Scheme target. We expect that 5,000 people will have completed training under this scheme in Merseyside and Warrington by the end of the year.

Merseyside has also benefited from the substantial funds we have provided for the TSA, through the industrial training boards, to assist training carried out by industry itself. These schemes will have helped many young people to take up apprenticeships in the area. These special measures have made a significant contribution but, as I said earlier, it is regular jobs that are needed.

As my hon. Friend has recognised, the problems on Merseyside are difficult and deep-rooted. While new industry, aided by the Government's regional policy, has brought many new jobs to the area, these have not been sufficient to replace the jobs continuously being lost. In addition, the new industries have been severely hit by the recession, as have other established concerns.

The Government made Merseyside a special development area in August 1974 because they realised the gravity of the situation. They try to encourage and persuade firms to go to Merseyside, and offer the full range of regional financial incentives to prospective employers. And now the new National Enterprise Board regional office in Liverpool is actively seeking out opportunities for investment.

Great attention has been paid to the building of advance factories on Merseyside. I believe them to be of importance to the area. Of the 27 allocated since July 1974, five have been built and are available, 13 are under construction—including two in the inner city area at Rock Ferry and Sandown Dock—one is already occupied and three have been allocated to employers. The Department of Industry 1399 is also currently acquiring 100 acres of land for future industrial development.

This will also help the construction industry, as will also other significant Government contracts now or soon to go ahead—a new £12½ million special hospital, a Crown court costing £18 million, and new Civil Service office accommodation in Southport costing £5 million. The Inland Revenue building at Bootle is now under way.

My hon. Friend drew particular attention to the problems of the inner city area, and I am absolutely in accord with his view that this is a major problem. The problems of the inner city, including employment, are particularly difficult, and a committee of Ministers, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, is urgently looking at the problem.

My hon. Friend will know that a particular study has been made of Liverpool itself, and we hope that this will soon be completed. The Department of Industry is also undertaking a survey of the industrial needs of the North-West, particularly Merseyside.

Many aids are being given to Merseyside at the present time. Over the next 1400 few years some 5,000 Civil Service jobs will go to Merseyside—considerably more than the number recommended in the Hardman Report on Civil Service dispersal.

We recognise that from all points of view Merseyside has plenty to offer to employers, not least a lively and talented work force. Already there are encouraging signs that additional work is going to Merseyside. There has been substantial recruitment to the car industry. Although redundancies hit the headlines, a number of small-to-medium-size firms have moved to Merseyside recently or have expanded.

This, on a larger scale, is ultimately the only answer to our problem in Liverpool. New—and prosperous—manufacturing industry is needed if we are to get away from a level of unemployment which is deeply upsetting to us all. The Government are determined to solve the problem which my hon. Friend has so ably presented this evening.