Regional Industrial Development

HC Deb 04 July 1984 vol 63 cc298-302

6. Mr. Hicks

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will place in the Library a list of all submissions received in response to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

14. Mr. Bruce

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the responses he has received to the White Paper on regional industrial development.

Mr. Norman Lamont

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hicks

Will the Minister confirm that he has received from areas such as the south-west many representations of a high calibre which make sense economically and socially? If that is typical of the country, does it not suggest that an effective programme of regional policy should be maintained by the Government?

Mr. Lamont

My hon. Friend will know that the White Paper states that the Government intend to maintain an effective regional policy. I confirm that I have received many representations from the south-west and that they are of very good quality.

Mr. Bruce

Will the Minister acknowledge that the representations show less anxiety about the reorganisation of regional policy than about the drastic cuts in it at a time when we need investment and have record unemployment? Will he acknowledge that there is real anxiety that many of our traditionally based industries will be cut off from Government help when they need it most, the consequences of which will be increased unemployment, especially in rural and remote areas? Will he recognise that his revision of regional policy is a disaster for future investment and employment?

Mr. Lamont

I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not know how he can say that the policy is a disaster before we have reached any decisions. With regard to representations, we have received some that urge us to scrap regional policy altogether.

Mr. Ward

May I remind my hon. Friend that many people believe that regional aid should be scrapped? It distorts management decisions and, in the past, has been used to subsidise, at the expense of taxpayers in constituencies such as mine, developments which would have been undertaken.

Mr. Lamont

I see that there is as much unanimity on the Back Benches on this question as there is on protecting the textile industry. My hon. Friend knows that at the general election we said that we would maintain an effective regional policy. We believe that much-money has been wasted on regional policy and that we can get better value for money. There is no point in spending huge sums of money shuffling jobs from one area to another.

Mr. Madden

Will the Minister describe the precise link between the current review of travel-to-work areas and the definition of assisted areas, which is expected in the autumn? Will he assure the House that any changes in the boundaries of travel-to-work areas in places such as Bradford, which will reduce the rate of unemployment, will not be used to strip away assisted area status from such places?

Mr. Lamont

The link is that the travel-to-work areas are the building blocks of the assisted area map. Until we have the redefined travel-to-work areas, which we shall have at the end of this month, we cannot redraw the map. I cannot give guarantees about a particular area, because the travel-to-work area is the basis on which all decisions must be made.

Mr. Wigley

Will the Minister accept that, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), most countries in the Economic Community have substantially more extensive regional policies than we have? Does he realise that many companies are in a state of uncertainty? They are waiting for an announcement and are holding back investment decisions until they know what will happen. Will he tell the House when the announcement will be made?

Mr. Lamont

I, of course, accept that this matter is bound to cause a degree of uncertainty. We are getting on with it as quickly as possible. It depends upon the revision of the travel-to-work areas. We then have to do the work on the map. We hope to make a decision as quickly as we can in the autumn.

Mr. Neale

I urge my hon. Friend to refresh his mind on the debate that took place in the House on this subject in relation to the West Country recently. Will he take note of the comment made over and over again by Conservative Members about the need for his consideration to take into account communications, and road communications in particular? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on that subject?

Mr. Lamont

I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. Many people feel that investment in infrastructure is one of the most effective ways of helping the regions. It is often much more effective than grants.

Mr. Evans

Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the MSC is handling its review of travel-to-work areas? St. Helens council was given only eight days in which to respond to the proposition that the borough of St. Helens should be split into three different travel-to-work areas. That is unacceptable nonsense. Will he give a guarantee that he will reject the proposal when it comes before him?

Mr. Lamont

Travel-to-work areas are a matter for the Department of Employment, not the MSC. I shall, of course, look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Bowen Wells

Would it not be better to make the whole country a development area and concentrate our assistance on an industry-by-industry, case-by-case basis, so that we obtain value for money?

Mr. Lamont

We should not be able to do that and qualify for any money from the European regional development fund. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friends take in that point. Nor should we be able to maintain a system of incentives alone for inward investment. That has to be related to regional policy, and that is clearly laid down under the competition rules within the Community.

Mr. Wilson

Has the Minister noticed, from Scottish representations, the fear and alarm at the idea that this review is no more than an attack on the share of resources for industrial development that Scotland receives? Will he, therefore, give an assurance to the House of Commons now that under no circumstances will Scotland's share be reduced, when we have 330,000 people out of work?

Mr. Lamont

I do not know whether deliberately or accidentally, but the hon. Gentleman interprets everything that is said in the House as an attack on Scotland and its share of resources. Surely the hon. Gentleman should recognise that when such huge sums of money have been spent on regional policy, with no obvious benefit, it is right that there should be a review of how cost-effective that aid has been. We cannot give guarantees to any areas because we must take into account the high rates of unemployment in many areas which at present are not assisted.

Mr. Harris

When considering those high-calibre representations from the south-west, particularly from the hon. Member for St. Ives, will my hon. Friend ensure that any local authority which stands to lose its assisted area status or be downgraded is given adequate opportunity to make representations before the order is laid before the House, as the House will not be able to amend the order?

Mr. Lamont

It is for hon. Members to represent. The whole purpose of the consultation period through which we are now going is for individual areas and their Members of Parliament to make representations. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not exactly backward at doing that, because we have received over 460 different submissions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is the Minister aware that the prospect of the implementation of the Government's proposals contained in the White Paper is causing deep anguish and anxiety in Cumbria? Is the Minister further aware that he has no moral authority to come forward with proposals which will effectively terminate regional aid to parts of the northern region and maintain high levels of unemployment which are unacceptable in a modern society? When he reviews all the communications that he has received from his hon. Friends asking for cuts in regional aid, will he remember that what he proposes will keep people on the dole in my constituency, and that is unacceptable?

Mr. Lamont

The hon. Gentleman is just jumping to conclusions. I have made no proposals relating to any area at the moment. We have made it clear that those areas which have a strong case based on the highest levels of unemployment will continue to be assisted. That is the moral authority that we have.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson

Will the Minister take an early opportunity to correct himself? Two decisions have already been taken amounting to cuts of £200 million by the removal of replacement and non-job-creating modernisation schemes from the Government's regional policy. Those decisions were taken in advance of consultation. Will he confirm that none of the documents that have argued for a regional policy have agreed with that decision taken in advance of consultations? Will he therefore review that decision after consultation?

Mr. Lamont

No, Some people have supported the decision with which the hon. Gentleman disagrees. I stand by what I said earlier—no decisions about the map have been made.

Mr. Williams

Do not the questions that have so far been asked show that on the question of consultation the Government are getting themselves into a terrible tangle with the House? It is only a matter of weeks before the recess and we still do not know the Government's intentions. Does not the fact that the boundaries order, which is due to be introduced in the autumn, will have immediate effect mean that any debate in the House will occur after the event? Shall we not be dealing with a fait accompli? If the only debate on the details is the debate on the order, hon. Members will have a mere one and a half hours, minus two speeches from the Minister, in which to make their representations. Because of the Government's persistent secrecy in regard to their intentions on the boundaries, any debate before the order will occur in a vacuum, because no hon. Member will know the Government's intentions for his constituency.

Mr. Lamont

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He must not assume that a matter of this importance will be disposed of in a one-and-a-half-hour debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation, but today's questions have revealed that a protracted consultation period results in many hon. Members being determined to make representations for their areas.