Liverpool (Finance) (Hansard, 1 May 1984)

§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

I make no apology at this late hour for raising once again that which has been described as the crisis in Liverpool. It is important that I set out what I consider to be some of the essential background to the situation in Liverpool for the general background influences considerably what is happening in Liverpool.

At one time Liverpool was a thriving port with its main local economy based upon shipbuilding, ship repairing, the docks industry, warehousing, distribution and commerce. Even in the so-called good years the city has always had twice the national average of unemployment. That is indicative of the endemic problem in Liverpool and in many other old industrial conurbations.

I do not suggest that the crisis in Liverpool has developed in the past 12 months. Since 1979, the pace of decline has accelerated. Since that year there has been a loss of 40,467 jobs, either through closures or declared redundancies, affecting almost every aspect of industry in the area. I cite examples of jobs lost in the following industries: 12,120 in food and drink; 3,441 in vehicle manufacturing; 2,826 in electrical engineering; 1,444 in clothing and footwear; 8,039 in transport and communication; 1,875 in paper and printing; 2,546 in the distributive trades; and 50 in an employment bureau of the Department of Employment. No sector of industry has escaped the avalanche that has devastated employment and the industrial base, leaving behind misery and poverty among the unemployed, the old and the young, whose expectations of Government and society have hit rock bottom.

Unemployment at 20 per cent. hides the real problem of city areas with youth unemployment as high as 70 or 80 per cent. Young people have left school and have suffered years of unemployment. Many marry and start a family without ever having a proper job. That has contributed largely to the fact that crime and drugs have become predominant in the lives of many young people. Their despair and hopelessness draw them into the drug and crime cycle. Full credit should be given to the youth section of the Labour party in recruiting young people into more constructive activities and in fighting for a decent life for future generations.

As the co-chairman of the campaign committee, I assure the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that the Labour movement in Liverpool does not see the Liverpool city council crisis in isolation. The triple alliance of the district Labour party, the Liverpool and Merseyside Association of Trade Councils and the Labour group have spelled out the message at every meeting, demonstration and rally in Liverpool. The message is that the attacks on miners, health services and trade unions and redundancies and closures are part and parcel of a single strategy to defeat the Labour trade union movement and to claw back the victories of the last century won by struggles of organised labour. I hope that the next Labour Government will act with the same determination in the interests of the working classes that this Government have shown in the interests of the classes that they represent.

325 I do not want to deal in detail with the figures bandied about for the budget of the Liverpool city council. The Secretary of State has been given full documentation of the budget proposals set out by the Labour-controlled city council. The budget clearly spelt out the fact that the problems facing Liverpool cannot be solved in isolation by the Liverpool city council.

The traditional role of local authorities has been carried out in the areas of unemployment, housing, education and care of the old and in provision for the sick, disabled and the young. The Government have changed the ground rules dealing with local government. Since 1979, they have set a course of confrontation with local authorities, trade unions, the unemployed and those on benefits.

At its 1980 policy conference, the Liverpool Labour party and the Labour group on the council decided on policies based on enough is enough. They had to do something in response to the Government's confrontational policies. They may be judged at some stage to be criminal acts. Those criminal acts of which Liverpool city council may be accused include the saving of jobs, the alleviation of some of the misery suffered by families on the housing waiting list and the maintenance of levels of service which are still inadequate against the backcloth of misery and poverty that has been attendant in the city for over a century.

Those policies were put to the electorate in 1983 and they brought Labour to power. I do not believe that in the city's history the facts have been brought home to the people as they have over the past two or three years. There has never been the conscious response from the electorate in Liverpool that we see at the moment.

I do not believe that we can fiddle with the alternatives that have been suggested in the city by the Liberals and the Tories. Both budgets put forward by them at the last meeting of Liverpool city council were defeated, and the city treasurer said that while they might be legal, they were impractical and did not deal with the base problem that the city faces.

An article in The Sunday Times said that the Government intend to introduce legislation hurriedly to send commissioners into Liverpool to take over local authority responsibilities. Such action would be abortive because I believe, having spent my working life in Liverpool, that there would no co-operation from the local authority unions with the commissioner or any other action the Government imposed on Liverpool in place of the elected local authority. we must take The Sunday Times suggestion seriously. I do not believe that the Government would demur in bringing a commissioner or other authority into the city to undermine the confidence in the Labour administration and abort its actions to solve some of the problems that the city faces.

The policies that the Labour party has been pursuing were put to the electorate in 1983 and brought Labour to power despite the fact that a vicious campaign had been carried out against the leadership of the Labour movement in the city by the Liberals and the Tories. The accusation made was that there was a militant-led confrontation. Every poster in the city published by the Liberal party said the choice was between Marxism and the Liberals. The Liberal party awakened people to the problems that the city faces.

No fiddling with the problems that face Liverpool will achieve a solution. The electorate's conscious response to the Labour party illustrates the people's growing 326 awareness of the problems that they face and the need for a solution. I do not believe that commissioners, or any other suggestion, will bring about a solution to the problems facing the city. They will be seen as forms of intimidation against the elected representatives who have been legitimately and lawfully elected by the people of the city on a mandate and policy that are seen by the Labour party in the city as the only way forward. There is evidence of ever-growing support of the people of Liverpool for the policies being pursued by the Labour party.

I believe this is so because Liverpool traditionally has been an area of high unemployment. People recognise that there is something basically wrong in a society that can have something like 3.5 million to 4 million people thrown on the scrap heap, and where young people have no opportunities or future prospects. The cumulative effect of those things has meant that people are looking for more positive ideas. They are seeking ways out of their dilemma. Nothing that has been said by the Government gives them any comfort about their future security.

It is important that the House should understand that we are not dealing with an isolated problem. I do not believe that the situation in Liverpool is applicable only to Liverpool. There is evidence that throughout the old industrial regions a major problem is emerging that the Government apparently intend to disregard. They will do so not only at their peril but at the peril of the future of society.

Any attempt by the Government to intimidate the leadership of Liverpool city council — the Liverpool Echo reported only today that writs will be served against the leadership in the near future—can only exacerbate the situation. The Government must recognise that what is happening in Liverpool is merely a foretaste of what will happen in other authorities as the rate-capping legislation begins to bite into their rights to determine, according to their understanding, the needs of the people they represent.

There is growing support for Liverpool's actions throughout the Labour and trade union movement. It may well determine the outcome of the next general election. People are fully aware that the democracy that has been built up over many years of struggle by the trade union and Labour movement and conceded by concessional capitalism is now at an end and it is the intention of the Government to claw back the victories that have been achieved, not only in terms of the living standards of the working people but of the rights and privileges that they have gained after years of struggle.

This is evidenced, for instance, in the Government's attitude towards the trade union movement. They see that movement as a shield against their excesses. It is significant that the Government have made it a major priority to see that the trade union movement is weakened so that they can carry out policies that will further endanger the living standards, liberties and freedoms of working class people. This is one of the reasons why the Government should be made aware of the situation that prevails in Liverpool.

I speak as the chairman of the campaign committee which is a triple alliance between the trades councils, the district Labour party and the Labour group on the city council. At every meeting and demonstration it is pointed out that Liverpool cannot be viewed in isolation. It cannot be isolated from the attacks by the Government against the working class in terms of trade union legislation, the 327 miners' struggle, the attack on the Health Service and on local authority rights and responsibilities. The Government have made a frontal attack on the rights and privileges of the working class.

Our people are being made aware that Liverpool cannot struggle in isolation. I see the possibility of a major confrontation if the Government do not reconsider their position in relation to cities such as Liverpool.

All that Liverpool wants to do is to alleviate problems resulting from a system that has caused a decline in private enterprise. About 24,000 jobs in the docks industry have been reduced to fewer than 3,000. The 20,000 and more jobs in shipbuilding and engineering have been reduced to fewer than 3,000. Closure after closure has taken place in warehousing and commerce. About 40,000 jobs have been lost since 1979. The difficulties are increased by an aging population and major social problems.

The council wants to protect jobs, to maintain levels of service, and to ensure that the aging population is cared for. It wants to ensure that the 22,000 people on the housing waiting list have some hope of being housed. The Government consider such aims amount to acts of a criminal nature. That is indicative of what the Government, with their doctrinaire attitude are prepared to impose upon local authorities.

The Government cannot rest on the idea that in the postelection period, if Labour wins in Liverpool — as I believe that they will—they can move in and resolve the problem as they see fit. There will be a long confrontation of a kind that has not been seen for many years. Other local authorities will see that their common interest is served by the defence displayed in Liverpool, by the trade union movement and the electors. We are seeing the transformation of working class attitudes towards local authorities which look after their daily lives by providing services, activities and amenities.

The Government must say clearly what they intend to do. Liverpool is part of our country. Its population forms part of our country and the people are entitled, during a time of mass unemployment, multi-deprivation and lack of housing, to say that they want the Government to consider what they have done for Liverpool. I do not want the Minister to regurgitate figures about the amount of money that has gone to Liverpool. Figures in such an argument are meaningless. If the Minister saw the housing and listened to unemployed and elderly people there, he would have the evidence.

The city's problems cannot be cut off from those that face our society. The crunch has now come. The election of 3 May might well produce a Labour majority on the council. Its mandate will therefore have been confirmed. The future of local democracy will then be in question. The problems cannot be resolved by Liverpool city council. There is an urgent need for the Government to reconsider and tell Liverpool that there must be a judgment about the effects caused by the £120 million that has been taken away from the council in the past five years and the 44,000 jobs. Such factors—the depletion of services and the aging population — must be considered with a sensitivity and understanding that the Government apparently lack. If they do not do that, the confrontation will be longer-term and will result in a host of local authorities joining Liverpool in telling the Government of 328 the right of local government to determine the needs of the people it represents and to fulfil its promises. That will become a major feature of local government elections.

I hope that the Minister will not attempt to argue on the basis of the amount of money that Merseyside development corporation and other agencies have received. It has not found its way to the city council and enabled it to tackle the problems. I hope that the Minister will come clean and tell the people of Liverpool that the Government will reconsider, will not take a global attitude to local authorities, and that local authorities in the circumstances of Liverpool will be given consideration, not on the basis of special treatment, but on the basis that they will get back the money that the Government have filched so that they can perform the responsibilities that they were elected to perform.