§ Mr. David Young (Bolton, East)I thank the House for the opportunity to raise these issues on an Adjournment debate because they are of tremendous interest to my constituency. Although I do not endorse any of the Government's measures on unemployment, I do not think that it is the purpose of the debate to argue party policy. My objective is to draw to the attention of the Minister the many difficulties affecting my constituency and to press for ways to alleviate them.
My constituency was a textile constituency but, as the textile industry declined, engineering, papermaking, electronics and commerce replaced it. The fact that Bolton for so long had low unemployment figures compared with the north-west and Britain generally was due to the initiative and drive of its people to diversify into other newer industries as the traditional industries of the area declined. Since 1979 unemployment has escalated. In March 1979 unemployment stood at 5.8 per cent.; in March 1980, 6.3 per cent.; in March 1981, 12.3 per cent.; in March 1982, 15.5 per cent.; and in March 1983, 15.5 per cent. The figure for March 1983 is on the new adjusted figure and therefore the true number of unemployed is much higher.
Although engineering and textiles are the main industries in the area, it is important to note that my remarks refer equally to the other industries that have gone by the board. None of the figures today takes into account the redundancies at the Littlewoods mail order firm, the redundancies taking place at the Trinity paper mill, or the redundancies in the weaving industry that may shortly occur.
Although I intend to refer to some larger firms, I am also concerned about the closure of many small or medium-sized firms that have gained an international reputation— for example, Ryders machine Tools—embodying the native skill of the north-west that spread out to gain markets all over the world. I am concerned equally with small and large firms.
My main worry is about the escalating unemployment in the north-west where the native skills of the people are being thrown on to the industrial scrap-heap. There is a problem also with the service industries. Although Bolton's local authority has not yet announced any redundancies, if the pressure of Government cuts continues that may happen. The local hospital was given the go-ahead a few years ago, when I initiated an Adjournment debate in the House. However, there are signs that the programme is slipping. If that happens, it will be impossible to slot in the staff now being trained on the assumption that the hospital will be ready on time. I am concerned not only with existing unemployment, but with the future of many people currently in employment whose jobs may be in jeopardy.
The Minister will recall that I led a delegation from Bolton about the rearrangement of manpower services committees. We hoped that there would be a district committee. The format has now changed and I am not aware of the up-to-date position because the local authority has not received in writing details of the exact proposals. When the delegation met the Minister, he acknowledged that Bolton and the manpower services initiatives had approached the problems with drive and enthusiasm. 495 People from other authorities have come to Bolton to see the projects initiated by the local authority. We told the Minister that there should be a representative from Bolton on any committee set up to govern the schemes. However, there is no Bolton representative on the new Greater Manchester manpower committee. I ask the Minister for guidance about how Bolton will be represented in future on the new area committee.
We also told the Minister that we wanted a local subcommittee to look after Bolton. I do not wish to name other authorities, but we made it clear to the Minister that we had moved much further ahead than many of the authorities with which Bolton is grouped. Any grouping on a committee would be a levelling down, not a levelling up, for Bolton. I hope that the skill, ability, drive and inventiveness that we in Bolton have already shown will not be lost in an arrangement in which we who have proven experience are denied a say in the future of the schemes in our areas.
Long-term unemployment is another factor in Bolton. If one compares the fourth quarter of 1980 with the fourth quarter of 1982 in the Bolton travel-to-work area, it is clear that the number of people who have been unemployed for more than three years has increased by about 61 per cent. There has been a massive increase of about 745.5 per cent. in the number of people unemployed for two to three years. In February 1983, 47 people in Bolton were chasing one job. In the Greater Manchester council area, 43 people were chasing one job. In other words, there is severe longterm unemployment which is affecting not just young people but many people whom I shall call the mature unemployed, who tend to be people who have financial responsibilities.
I tabled a question to the Minister some months ago, and the figures that he gave showed that the increase for those over the age of 50 who had been out of work for more than 52 weeks between October 1981 and October 1982 was 51.4 per cent. I am reliably informed that the peak earnings age group of 20 to 44 shows an increase in unemployment during the past three years of 1,094 per cent. among those who had been out of work for two to three years. I can give the Minister the source of those figures if he wishes. I do not want to bandy figures, but they show that there is an important long-term unemployment problem in Bolton.
Although many schemes emanating from the Department affect the young unemployed, it is noticeable that there seems to be no relationship with the large number of what I have called the mature unemployed who represent a large proportion of the register. Many of those people are working class and many of them are middle class. Many of them have managerial skills and many are skilled craftsmen. They now find themselves without job prospects, not only in Bolton but in the surrounding area.
I therefore ask the Minister to look closely at the possibility of retraining the mature unemployed. I certainly hope that he will talk to his hon. Friends in the Department of Health and Social Security, because, although that would not resolve the problem, it would help if the Government were to adopt suggestions for earlier retirement for those people for whom there is no prospect of employment by reducing the retirement age.
There is another problem in Bolton because we have a large ethnic community, which represents 7 per cent. of the population. However, it has twice as many unemployed as the host population. One out of five men 496 in the host population in Bolton is at present without a job. I am informed that in the ethnic community the level is double that.
What schemes has the Minister for dealing with that specialised problem? The need is not only for workshop schemes but for language and numeracy tuition. I am told that one successful scheme in a college in Bolton may have to cease after this year because of lack of finance from the Manpower Services Commission.
Two other matters, which are worrying, are of significant importance to Bolton, and could swell greatly the level of unemployment. The first depends on the decision that should be taken by the Ministry of Defence to award a contract to British Aerospace rather than the Americans. When unemployment is so high, it is of concern to me, as a Member of Parliament, that I have to lobby a Minister because there could be a danger of the contract going overseas. Were that contract to go overseas, it would mean that 900 jobs in British Aerospace, which is the largest engineering employer in the area, would be lost in four or five years. Future contracts could depend on this one. Without it, the factory might eventually close. If that happened, it would take with it 367 apprentices. The decision on that contract has yet to be taken. The Government have stated that they intend to close Horwich rail engineering works. With it will go 1,209 jobs. If that closure takes place, it will take with it 214 apprentices.
I have quoted one possible and one actual danger affecting employment in Bolton. That must be set against the general decline in engineering, which is the main industry in Bolton. Where will those people get jobs? In the Greater Manchester council area 163,628 people were in engineering in 1978. In 1982 the figure had fallen to 120,861. The number of apprentice craftsmen has dropped from 1,446 to 503 in the three years ending in 1982.
That brings me to a statement which affects those two cases. The amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister in the British Rail workshops debate on 22 March 1983 stated that the Government supported
vigorous and constructive measures by all concerned to promote alternative and durable employment in the areas affected."—[Official Report, 22 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 31.]The Horwich workshop is one of those areas. What measures are the Government proposing?I realise that some of the matters that I have raised may not fall exclusively within the responsibilities of the Minister's Department. Massive closures such as those of the Horwich workshops and others that I have mentioned involve many Departments, including the Departments of Employment, Environment and Industry. As the Department of Employment is a key Department in this, I ask the Minister to raise with other Ministers as a matter of urgency the need for positive action to provide meaningful jobs. Stop-gap measures are not sufficient. Unless real jobs are created, we shall slide into the situation that we have seen in other parts of the country.
It is no use the Secretary of State for Employment telling people to get on their bikes. The shortage of engineers in my area is now so severe that I wonder who will be available even to make the bikes. I hope that the Minister will reply to the specific issues that I have raised in relation to the youth programme, the problems of the long-term unemployed and the ethnic unemployed and the undefined "constructive measures" outlined in the Government's amendment.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison)I shall not be drawn by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the bicycle industry. I am, however, very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had the good fortune to be able to introduce this debate today.
As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, I know Bolton quite well as my own constituency of City of Chester is not far down the road. In September last year I visited Bolton. I went round a hydraulic manufacturing business and met the chamber of commerce. As an outsider visiting Bolton, I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's views about the reasons for Bolton's prosperity and the get-up-and-go attitude of its people. Having seen the situation for myself, I also realise that unemployment in Bolton is very high and the effect that the recession has had especially on the textile and engineering industries.
Although the hon. Gentleman does not agree with the Government's policies, I hope that he will accept that the Conservative party and the Government regard unemployment as a serious and tragic waste of human resources. We believe that our solution is right, but the Labour party proposes a different solution. We are only too well aware of the misery and hopelessness that unemployment brings to those unfortunate enough to lose their jobs or to be unemployed for any period.
In my view, the current high unemployment in Bolton and throughout the country results mainly from two factors. Here there may be some common ground between the hon. Gentleman and me. First, the world recession and the massive hike in oil prices have affected all Western countries and are bound to affect unemployment levels. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may also agree that we have suffered more than most from what I describe as chronic lack of competitiveness. In the past, other countries paid more attention to inflation and have now got themselves into a better position to compete in a shrinking market. While they were doing that, for two decades we paid ourselves more and more while producing too little. Therefore, with some obvious exceptions, British industry was failing to produce goods of as high a quality and at as low a price as our competitors.
The Government have reversed that trend. We are creating a climate in which customers can be won back and new markets developed. All the signs are that we are beginning to succeed.
The hon. Gentleman will accept that inflation is falling steeply. It is now at a lower level than it has been for nearly 13 years. We are therefore back on the path to sound money. That is bound to help industry to sell more and to create more jobs. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, by and large, there is now what I can only describe as common sense in pay bargaining. Pay settlements are now more than 10 per cent. below the level of settlements of three years ago and people are beginning to understand that the only way in which to secure a rise in living standards and more jobs is to secure improvements in competitiveness.
Productivity has been rising at Japanese rates. It has improved by 20 per cent. since the first quarter of 1981. Moreover, new products are being developed and attitudes at work are changing. We are also succeeding in export 498 markets. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the CBI's March survey, which shows more optimism than ever since the beginning of the recession.
That is the foundation upon which industry will have to build. I am glad to say that there are some examples of firms in Bolton that are doing just that. For example, RIVA Computer Services, of which the hon. Gentleman probably knows, has recently moved into purpose-built units in the town and expects to increase its staff substantially in the next two years. Columbus Foundries has set up production on the former Platt Saco Lowell site in the town and is recruiting 125 workers locally. Bolton Glynwed Property Developments has begun work on developing a 23-acre site into industrial units. That could create 800 more jobs.
The hon. Gentleman said that the new employers coming into the area are setting up service industries. There is no cause for concern or complaint about' that, as there are bound to be changes in the pattern of our industries. It is likely that fewer people will be employed in heavy industry and more will be employed in light manufacturing and service industries. That is partly an evolutionary trend that we shall have to accept.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to British Aerospace. I am aware of the importance to British Airways Lostock plant of the new anti-radar missile contract, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has arranged for a full evaluation of the contenders. He will, of course, take account of a wide range of factors, including employment, operational performance, technical merit, cost, availability and cost effectiveness. That evaluation is proceeding according to the timetable that was agreed with the bidders. The Ministry of Defence expects to complete its procedures shortly.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to British Rail Engineering Ltd. I accept that not all news in the area is good and that the forthcoming closure of the Horwich works is a nasty blow. The problem is not that Horwich is inefficient, but that its work load has declined to the point when the plant can no longer be run on a viable basis. Therefore, British Rail must match its capacity to meet the expected work load.
The hon. Gentleman asked for clarification of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 22 March. What he said was clear. He was making the point that all Government agencies that can help will be working with British Rail, local authorities and others to find new opportunities and jobs. For instance, British Rail Engineering Ltd. has made it clear that it wants to work through the local development trust to create new jobs. It has nominated a director to assist specifically with that task and it is also prepared to provide financial resources.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that assisted area status has been a matter of contention in Bolton. In response to the Horwich closure, the Government propose to maintain Bolton's assisted area status. Bolton was originally destined to lose its intermediate area status last August but, in response to the temporary but difficult position in the area, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Industry have decided to reverse that decision. As a result, Bolton remains eligible for many regional incentives.
§ Mr. David YoungI am not clear what the Minister is saying. Are we to get back our limited assisted area status or is there the possibility of that being raised to full development area status? Obviously it is the latter that I would ask the Minister to press for.
§ Mr. MorrisonI apologise if I did not make it clear to the hon. Gentleman. I was trying to say that, because of the Horwich closure, which created a nasty and difficult position, my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Industry decided temporarily to reverse their decision to take away intermediate area status from Bolton. As a result, Bolton will have intermediate area status and there will be many regional incentives.
The hon. Gentleman is also concerned about what might happen in the education service in Bolton regarding school meals. As he will be aware, the Government want to see the massive amount of taxpayers' money that is being spent on education better directed towards the classroom. As in anything else, we need to achieve greater efficiency in the provision of school meals, and that could result in job losses.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of the long-term unemployed. I draw his attention to the special employment measures and how they affect Bolton. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced two particular measures in the Budget that would be of direct help to the categories of people to which the hon. Gentleman referred. For example, the extension of the enterprise allowance scheme, which helps unemployed people to start up in business on their own, was originally introduced as an experiment in five areas.
North-east Lancashire was one such area, not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and it was most successful. From 1 August to the end of March 1984 the scheme will be extended throughout the country. Places for a further 25,000 people will be available, and I have no doubt that, because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, many will want to take advantage of the scheme. A second measure that will be of direct benefit to the unemployed is the new scheme for part-time job release, which takes effect from 1 October. That should provide part-time job opportunities for up to 40,000 people who are at present unemployed. More than £90 million of taxpayers' money has been set aside over the next two years for these two schemes.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government are concerned and are setting aside substantial amounts of money to help the very people about whom he was talking. In fact, in Bolton about 2,620 people are already benefiting from the community programme, community industry, the young workers scheme, the temporary short-time working compensation scheme and the full-time job release scheme. Without those programmes, many of his constituents would be unemployed.