Northern Half of England (Hansard, 11 December 1981)

§ Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that the northern half of England represents a huge under-utilised resource which should be regarded as a national opportunity rather than a regional problem; is aware that present regional policies have a useful but limited effect; notes that employers, unions, the professions, educational establishments, media and all the population of the area have most to contribute; acknowledges that the barriers to a release of these resources are partly physical and partly psychological; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to initiate a programme which will bring together the imagination and effort necessary to unlock this great potential. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I—also my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), who is waiting for the Adjournment—share a tiny portion of parliamentary time in the sure confidence that no one will hear or report what we say. I am therefore glad to have the opportunity to say something about the problems of the northern half of England away from the usual paraphernalia of regional debates. We all get into a stale groove on such occasions. I shall use this opportunity to turn the approach to the affairs of the North on its head. As a result, many of my hon. Friend's notes will be irrelevant. Indeed, I have already slipped into the error myself, in that we tend to talk about this subject as a problem. I want to talk about it as an opportunity, because that is what it is.
I had better begin, for the sake of the record, with a brief definition. It does not matter too much to me where the line is drawn for the northern half of England, but for administrative purposes it covers the regions of the North-West, the North, and the Yorkshire and Humberside region. That is the area to which my remarks will relate. Of course, in economic terms, the area spreads further south and affects North Wales and parts of the East and West Midlands.
Arguments about definition arise only if one insists upon looking at the problem in the old way. If one does that, one worries about boundaries and about ensuring that each region has its fair share. Those boundaries are dictated by administrators, bureaucracies and the need to collect statistics on an understandable basis.
The real definition of the North of England is that part of England that does not benefit from the dynamo in the South-East. London and the South-East act as the dynamo of the economy, attracting benefits in all walks of life—from the arts to the economy—within a grossly over-centralised kingdom. Round that southern sunshine a penumbra is spreading into East Anglia, the East Midlands, parts of the West Country and, I am pleased to say, into parts of South Wales. The North is united by exclusion.
I shall give an example that will prove to matter as the recession ends and the economy picks up. I looked at the figures for 1977 to 1979, when there was a slight pick-up from the previous recession. Unemployment in the North, North-West, Yorkshire and Humberside fell by 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points in an area where unemployment was already high. However, in the South-East, East Anglia and the East Midlands, unemployment fell by 0.6 per cent. to 1 per cent., in an area with a lower rate of unemployment.
The evidence suggests that many of the newer industries are still settling in the Thames valley, stretching 1148 towards Bristol and up to new centres such as Milton Keynes. Therefore, hon. Members should have a mental picture of a strong centre round the South-East and a penumbra that spreads as far as the Midlands and East Anglia,. I shall not develop that point further, although it is possible to illustrate it in several ways. I am convinced that I have given a true reflection of how the economy continues to move.
The problem is that people tend to regard the North—I use that term to cover all the areas under discussion—as if it is a special world—peculiar and different. I am most anxious that people should understand that this is not a regional matter, but one of national concern. When we talk about the "problems of the regions" we are often talking about problems shared by both North and South. There is little difference between the nature of the problems affecting inner London and those affecting inner Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool. It so happens that there are more conurbations in the northern half of the mscountry than elsewhere, but the problem concerns inner cities, irrespective of whether they are north or south.
Similarly, many of the trends that affect the South also affects the North. There is trend towards more service industries. The North-West has always had a long tradition of female employment and other parts of the country are beginning to catch up. Therefore, there is some evening out. With the exception of Merseyside, the pattern of industrial relations is virtually the same both North and South. A study was made of industrial stoppages, based on the average between 1968 and 1973. With the exception of Merseyside, the situation in all the areas concerned in the North was found to be much the same as that in the South-East and East Anglia.
The style of work and the habits of the people are very similar throughout the country. However, part of the country accounts for 30 per cent. of the working population. It has all the normal living conditions and facilities, covering the full range of incomes, of tastes and of rural and urban circumstances. It has an enormous range of educational and other establishments and provides about 26 per cent. of university places. It is a place which would be familiar to any Englishman wandering about the country—he would not find perculiarities if he wandered north of Watford. Yet we find that the gross domestic product of the region is well below the nation's average and substantially below those of the South-East and the East Midlands.
There are great resources in the northern half of England which are not being used, and I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Industry to a growing problem. The Department of Employment publishes statistics of skill shortages. There is a massive difference between the skill shortages in the southern part of the country and those in the North. In short, there are skills waiting to be used in the North.
The Department of Employment Gazette in 1979—the latest documentation that I could find—did a study on hard-to-fill vacancies in unskilled work such as driving, milk delivery, and the hotel, retail and warehousing trades. A great majority of those vacancies are concentrated in London and the South-East. I labour again the point that wherever one looks one finds an enormous similarity across the nation, but great underutilised resources in the northern parts, both in skilled and unskilled aspects, and growing and continuing pressure in the South.
1149 We have laboured with the skills problem for many years. The traditional regional policies have existed since at least 1934. Considering the regional needs map from 1934 onwards—starting with central Scotland, Tyneside, Cumbria and a little of south Wales—one sees that the map has grown bigger and bigger until, in 1972, it covered 40 per cent. of the country—virtually every area except the South-East and the Midlands. If that is a definition of need, as is some ways it is, we can say only that between 1934 and 1972 the need had clearly not been met and had extended further south. If we drew a map on the same criteria that applied in 1972, we would be hard put to exclude the West Midlands. Therefore, despite the nearly 50 years of regional policy, the concentration in the South-East has continued to this day.
I am not knocking regional policy—let no one misunderstand me—because without it the position would have been infinitely worse; it has substantially helped the transition from the old to the new industries and, apart from anything else, we need it when competing with investment from overseas. The Public Accounts Committee considered the effectiveness of regional aid and the summary must be that it has been helpful. As my motion states, the policies have a useful but limited effect". While we wish to see regional policy continue and, in one respect, I wish to see it extended, it will not be the answer to the problems.
The only specific local plea that I make is that the Government must not be hidebound by their undertaking to make no further changes in the boundaries of the assisted areas. One clear anomaly that ought to be ended is the exclusion of the inner city areas from regional grants. The Government have reiterated only this week the need for a special provision for those areas and their exclusion seems incomprehensible. Apart from the effect on the United Kingdom, it affects accessibility to European funds. If the Government cannot include the inner cities, I hope that they will at least take those aspects into account.
The Government should not be shy. It has been said that 40 per cent. of the population covered was too much, and the proportion is now down to 25 per cent., but in Germany, France and Italy it is 35 per cent. to 40 per cent, in Belgium 33 per cent. and in Ireland 100 per cent. We must turn our attention to the need to prevent the continued drift to over-centralisation to release the resources.
One problem is that regional aid tends to make people within the northern regions competitive. It has been described as the begging bowl mentality. That description may be a little unkind, but it contains an element of truth.
A couple of years ago I analysed all the paper being sent out by the towns and areas hoping to attract money in their direction. I pass it on as mildly amusing. Everywhere turned out to be the centre. Nottingham was the Queen of the Midlands, Birmingham the city at the centre and Leeds and Yorkshire and Humberside were both the centre of Britain. Southampton is the centre of the South and Swansea the centre of the search. I never understood that one.
All areas are in the middle of international communications. Manchester is situated at the communications pivot between Europe and North America and Leeds at the threshold of Europe. The North of England is directly linked to all parts of the world and Norwich is 1150 situated at the hub of an extensive network of major roads. That is a curious claim, unless one wishes to go to Kings Lynn or Thetford.
I do not knock such endeavours. They are an expression of local pride and determination to do something for the local inhabitants, but they are also an expression of internal competition. As long as the people of the North continue to fight among themselves to pick up the crumbs, the South-East will continue to have the feast.
My proposals need money and resources to reconstruct the worn-out remnants of the old industry and the pollution that still bedevils certain areas. We shall need special capital aid for years to come. The local base is not strong enough to do the spring-cleaning on its own, and there is plenty to do. The North-West Industrial Development Association has sent the Prime Minister eight pages of possible capital projects that could be undertaken quickly.
However, nothing can be done without a change of attitude. Some of the changes needed are internal. Eighty-five per cent. of the new businesses come from within the region, so progress also depends on what the local people decide to do and we must look to our laurels to cut local rivalries. Manchester need not always compete with Liverpool or Leeds with Newcastle. There are signs that people are getting together more. There is a joint operation on the Stansted airport, which is encouraging and, I hope, a taste of thing to come.
Even more important is the psychology of the South. For example, let us consider the dispersal of civil servants. The expression implies that people are being sent away from thier natural homes. The alternative would be to talk about dispersing people to London, which may have an odd ring, although it just as natural to look at the matter that way. The old Hardman report in 1973 talked about everything being dispersed, by which it meant local offices but not policy. That is typical of an attitude which assumes that, becaue that is what has historically happened, for ever more the dynamo and centre of the country will remain in London and the South-East.
It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have a current example with the European marks office. Apparently it cannot be sited anywhere else because London is regarded as having the best communications with the European Community. Conversely there will be no growth in communications elsewhere in the United Kingdom because we will not be prepared to move the European marks office to another area.
The event that brought home these matters to me most sharply was the Inmos decision. It took me a long time to recover from the brazenness of it. It is water under the bridge now, but the Inmos technical centre went to Bristol and there was a great row about it. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), who was then Secretary of State for Industry, wrote a candid letter in which he stated: The overriding consideration was that the location should be attractive to qualified personnel. I understand that in determining attractiveness Inmos had regard to the image of the locality, the local environment and so on. It seems that the final consideration was access to London.
That is complete nonsense. There is no reason why the desires of the members of that management class should not be satisfied with a number of areas within the United Kingdom. The natural assumption that that sort of attitude should override any other was an insult, is an insult, and should not be repeated.
1151 What can we do to initiate change? I appreciate that it will take a long time to bring about change. Is there something that the Government could do now? The answer is "Yes". I have been urging for a long time that we should have a Minister for the North. That is not the cat's whiskers of an answer but it seems that everything else is not on. I am not interested in devolutions, parliaments or regional this or area that. I want something around which people's enthusiasm and imagination can coalesce. If a Minister were appointed who demanded a great civil service, I should not want him. If he were to be limited in area, I should not want him. A large civil service and a limited area would not achieve what we want.
When my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, as he now is, went to the North-East, that was not what I wanted. He went there to produce a one-off report. However, his visit showed that he was able to inject a new spirit. We have seen that again with the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to Liverpool. It is possible by strong Executive action to get others to join us in making a major move. We must understand that there is a psychological imaginative barrier to overcome and that there is a great deal of good will and co-operation available for those who are willing to take the plunge. My proposals will not solve everything but at least they will make a start.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will remember Boreas, the great north wind, which swept down to help the Athenians aginst the Persian fleet. I assure my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of good will in the North. There is a great deal of strength that is willing to sweep down to help the country in its economic troubles. I hope that he will tell us that there is some imagination that is prepared to take up the challenge.

§ Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)
I shall be brief because the Minister and I have only seven minutes between us. I shall restrict myself to taking two of the seven minutes. I support wholeheartedly what the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) has said. I do not always support everything that he says but I do on this occasion. We in the North are not a problem. Indeed, we are an opportunity. There is an infrastructure and there are skills and talents that need to be used and developed.
The local Labour Parties in the four regions to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been meeting jointly. I hope that the Conservative Party will consider adopting a similar aproach that will lead to a joint attack. The cities in the North have been the great pace setters of the past century. Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle, with their great universities and great cities, have been pace setters in education, housing, libraries and health and social services. I understand that it is said in the Civil Service that if it is wished to introduce something new on those lines it is worth learning what the northern cities are doing and making it compulsory.
The Government should reconsider the dispersal of the Civil Service. The ending of the proposal to move the Property Services Agency to Middlesbrough and many other dispersals was in direct contradiction to what is needed in Britain. I strongly support what has been said by the hon. Member for Withington.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor)
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Sylvester) is mistaken about at least his first point, when he said that no one would hear or report the debate. I hope that he is wrong, because he made many thoughtful points. I do not agree with all of them, but I agree with the majority. I am sorry that we do not have more time to debate the issues, because this has been a thoughtful debate, away from some of the claptrap that one hears in regional debates. Fundamental points have been raised.
In my present job I travel a great deal. I was in the North-East last week—I have been there many times. I was in the North-West several times during the recess. I visited North Wales yesterday and last night. As my hon. Friend will know, I come from a part of the country even further north than his. It has been a depressed area for a long time, so I understand a number of his points.
I have time to deal with only three points. First, I wish to take up the point that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) made about considering the position of the North as an opportunity rather than a problem. I think that is of great psychological importance more than anything else. I could not agree more with what he said.
If we are to achieve the fundamental economic restructuring that is required in many parts of the North—but certainly not in all—and if we are to bring in new industries, as the North has been successful in doing, to replace the traditional declining industries, it is important that the managerial class to which my hon. Friend referred should see the North as an attractive area. They should see it—I am generalising because of lack of time—as an attractive area which has the right infrastructure, excellent labour skills and excellent labour relations, as the hon. Member for Gorton said. It has an attractive environment and tremendous education opportunities in its universities.
If we are to create the entrepreneurs—that is a ghastly word, but we all know what it means—and if we can get people to move from small businesses into larger businesses in greater numbers, that psychological point must be stressed again and again. We should not underestimate the success achieved by many parts of the North, especially in attracting inward investment. The figures for the past 10 to 15 years show that the highest proportion of inward investment has taken place in the North-West, the North-East, Scotland and Wales. That shows that it can be done. I have visited some of the companies concerned and I hear nothing but praise from their representatives about the advantages of the area. That is an important matter and I wish that other hon. Members would take the constructive view that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Gorton have taken today.
Secondly, I come to the problem of definition in relation to the North, because my hon. Friend is talking about a huge area of three regions. It is important to recognise that there are differences within the regions. My hon. Friend recognised that when he talked about the problems of the inner cities being national rather than regional problems. I agree with that. If we look at the differences in the various parts of that huge tract of England, we see that some areas are prosperous and have lower levels of unemployment than the areas to which he 1153 referred—the South-East and the East Midlands. The problems in the textile industry are not exclusive to Yorkshire, Humberside and the North-East, but they are obviously strong there.
Therefore, there is not a homogeneous problem of the North. There are particular problems to which we must direct our attention. Possibly the solution that my hon. Friend suggested, of a Minister for the North, for that reason and for a number of other reasons, does not necessarily get to the heart of the problem.
My third point deals with resources. I have been impressed by the tremendous improvements in infrastructure in all the three regions about which we are talking compared with 10 years ago. That has been achieved only by a large injection of resources. On the figures since May 1979 of grants and aids to industry, the three regions to which my hon. Friend referred have been the major beneficiaries.
More than £600 million in regional development grants has been paid to those regions, focused on new investments and on the areas of greatest need. No less than £147 million selective assistance has been offered to industry in the North of England since May 1979. When the investment to which that aid is directed has been completed, some 50,000 new jobs will have been provided and 47,000 jobs safeguarded.