Liverpool (Hansard, 2 July 1987)

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
I am sure that the House is most interested to know that at last the Prime Minister recognises that our cities have very real problems. Some of us have been concerned with those problems for a long time.
In this Adjournment debate, I am raising not just the inner city problems of Liverpool, I am raising the problems of the city as a whole. We cannot divorce one from the other. There cannot be a solution to the inner city problems of Liverpool without a solution to the problems of the whole city. I want to make that absolutely clear.
I am not raising the problems of Liverpool purely for propaganda purposes. The needs of the people of Liverpool are very serious. The city needs much more genuine assistance than it has received, despite what Lord Young and others have said about the support given to Liverpool.
Our city is a victim of its history. It was a great port, handling a quarter of Britain's imports and exports. Until after the second world war, its industries related to the port. To that extent, the economy was unbalanced. With the decline of the port through the growth of air traffic, Britain's entry into the Common Market, and the change in the patterns of world trade, the port and its related industries were badly hit. Instead of new industries being introduced, especially in the past eight years, there has been a further deindustrialisation of the area. Unemployment, poverty and allied problems have grown.
Liverpool has some of the worst levels of unemployment in the country. We have the highest number of people receiving supplementary benefit. Despite what the Liverpool city council has achieved, we still have bad housing and a serious drug problem, and petty crime is on the increase. Those problems occur not only in the inner city but in the entire city.
With regard to unemployment, in April of this year, there were 52,572 claimants resident in the city. About 19,288, 35 per cent., were under 25 years of age, and 20,955, 55 per cent., had been unemployed for over one year. That figure is well above the national average, which is 42 per cent. In February of this year, the average rate of unemployment for the six Liverpool constituencies was 24 per cent., compared with a national average of 12.6 per cent. On 10 February, those receiving supplementary benefit from the 11 offices in the city numbered 138,287. In contrast, in February 1979, the number, although still too high, was 90,550.
In April 1986, although there has been some reduction because of the Liverpool city council's efforts, the housing waiting list was 19,696. One does not need too great an imagination to realise just how serious the problems are. In 1983, the Liverpool city council began to tackle some of the problems. It built 4,900 houses, pulled down slums such as Sir Thomas White gardens in my constituency, built six sports centres, built nursery schools, kept council house rents down—it did not increase them—and also kept down other local authority charges. It did a good job, but it was at a disadvantage because of the cut in rate support and other grants. It began the regeneration of the 736 city with its hands tied behind its back, but it tried, and its members have suffered for it through surcharges and disqualification from office.
Liverpool needs jobs, new industry and the resuscitation of existing industry where that is possible. Tourism can play a part, but only a minor one, in the redevelopment of our city. The new developments along the line of the old docks can help, but much more is required. The festival gardens were great while they lasted, but they have not produced too many permanent jobs, which are what is required. The maritime museum and the Albert dock complex are very nice, but they cannot begin to be the answer to Liverpool's needs.
The Minister who is to reply recently visited the city and is reported in the Liverpool papers as having said that the way forward is for Liverpool to encourage small local companies to employ local people. I and, I am sure, my colleagues from Liverpool do not oppose that, but I have to tell the Minister that that is only the minor part of the answer. In 1984, more than half of the 45,455 people employed in manufacturing were employed by just seven firms.
The fragility of manufacturing industry is underlined by the City of Liverpool's study of the Liverpool economy which says: The de-industrialisation' of Liverpool is nowhere more evident than in the City's manufacturing industries. Traditional industries like sugar refining, soap making, ship repairing, marine engineering and rope and twine manufacture have ended or are nearing the end of their long-standing role as sources of employment. Other industries transplanted in the early post-war period — rubber and synthetic fibre manufacturing—have also disappeared to become part of the area's economic history. We have unemployment and deindustrialisation, and because of that we have low pay on a massive scale. The Low Pay Unit on Merseyside says in a pamphlet: A total of a a quarter of million Merseysiders—nearly a third of the full-time workforce and three-quarters of part-timers — work for wages that fall below the Council of Europe's minimum threshold for a 'decent' standard of living. Added to the widespread unemployment problem the extent of low pay has left around two-fifths of the Merseyside population living in or on the margins of poverty. The House should take note of that. The Government must be far more responsive to the needs of our area. When beginning to concern themselves with the inner cities, they should not start by threatening or by-passing the elected local authority. The Government should help the local authority, and back it up by giving assistance and restoring some of the rate support grant—I would say all of the rate support grant—that has been taken away from Liverpool city council.
An editorial in the Liverpool Daily Post of 17 June stated: It must be very disappointing to new Trade and Industry Secretary Lord Young that the sticking plaster applied by the Government to the gaping wounds of Merseyside have not produced an instant cure. But how much more disappointing to all those working in the region and for the region to have the rug suddenly pulled from beneath their feet by the man who is supposed to lead their efforts. The fundamental facts that lie behind Merseyside's decline as a trading, commercial and manufacturing area are historic and geopolitical forces and not some deficiency of its people. That is absolutely right. So often we hear that if only the workers had not done certain things, there would not have been a decline in the area. That is definitely untrue.
737 I rarely quote the chairman of the chamber of commerce, but he said of Merseyside development corporation: Its success in the docklands is due to the fact that it makes all the planning decisions, it has the right to acquire land and it has no human problems to contend with since all its operations are confined to the redundant part of the waterfront up river from the Pier Head. It is the Chamber's view that a critical factor in the success of the Development Corporation is that there is no human factor in its area of operations. But, were a development corporation to be superimposed on an area where people live, then the problem is likely to become acute and the active co-operation of the local authority essential. Even the chamber of commerce, which has mainly backed the Government, has made it clear that it wants the local authorities to be properly involved in this matter.
"Housing Policies and the Inner City" issued by the Archdiocese of Liverpool Justice and Peace Commission 1987 states: the implicit philosophy which it involves — public investment as the important element—comes up against the government view that the role of the public sector should be reduced. But this will cut off the funds needed to achieve the necessary regeneration. For instance, between 1979 and 1985, the Rate Support Grant for Liverpool was reduced from 62 per cent. to 44 per cent. Agenda for Merseyside has calculated that while in the past six years, government spending in Merseyside has pumped in £200 million."— we keep hearing that more money is being pumped into Liverpool than into any other area— with the other hand it has withdrawn a total of £590 million, through reductions in rate support grants etc. We hear about the aid that has been pumped in, but very little, if anything, has been said by the Government about the money that has been taken out. Everyone understands what the position is.
I have made the point clearly. The first needs of Merseyside and Liverpool are jobs through public investment and private initiatives—we are not arguing against that. The continuing regeneration of the city through Government support to the local authority's housing programme, through co-operative housing — I am not arguing against that—and other public works is required.
Liverpool city council has taken on 1,000 additional workers over four years and 10,000 private-sector workers to man the housing programme. That programme needs to be assisted and further developed. There are one or two other problems. For example, there is the problem of the continuation of the tolls on the Mersey tunnel. Those tolls should be removed and the Government should look carefully at ways of assisting the port of Liverpool with such things as dredging charges, because the port needs help.
My final point is vital. It is about drugs and the need to deal with the environment that creates and encourages the problem. I received a letter yesterday that shook me to the foundation. I had been to see a block of flats and thought that I had managed to get the police, who acted positively, to remove the youngsters with drugs who were occupying the stairs of the block of flats. The police got them out, but God only knows where they went. They may settle somewhere else. I thought that I had managed to solve the problem, but the writer of that letter, a young women of 25 with two children, said it was as bad as ever. She said: If it goes on much longer I cannot see myself continuing. I will have to do away with myself. 738 That really shook me, but I understand the problem and the terrible frustration of that woman.
I have here a police report from CI division. It is a depressing report because of the enormous problems that it outlines. In relation to drugs the report says: The problem is spread throughout the Sub-Division but there is a preponderance in Croxteth and Norris Green. The times of the offences are recorded throughout the 24 hour period. The problem is exacerbated by the nature of the offence in that minute portions of drugs are exchanged for large amounts of money, plus the physical dependence of addicts leads to great secrecy and self-protection. The problem is so closely linked to a multitude of social problems in the area that no single causal definition is possible. The next page of the report outlines the problems of increased burglary in the area. The drugs problem, the increase in petty crime and in other forms of crime is related to the high levels of unemployment in the area. Liverpool would like to get rid of those flats and build two-storey houses. We have done that elsewhere, but it requires money and, of course, we are now hearing talk about a community charge. God knows where people in my area will find the money to pay such charges. The Government should help the community and we should not have to listen to this nonsense about a community charge.

§ Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on instigating this important debate. When the Minister visited Liverpool he appeared on Granada Television, and in the Liverpool Echo he was reported as saying that he had come to build bridges with the city council. On television he said that more than two thirds of the citizens of Liverpool did not pay any rates. That is an outrageous slur on the people of Liverpool and I hope that when he is winding up the debate he will withdraw that statement and apologise.

§ Mr. Heffer
I shall listen carefully to the Minister. I have not made many propaganda points. I am concerned about our people in Liverpool and about the conditions under which they have to live. They have awesome problems and need government assistance. The Minister cannot translate what has been done in London along the line of docks, where all sorts of nice houses have been built for yuppies, to an area like ours, where even the yuppies are out of work, never mind the rest of the people. We cannot think in those terms. If it is also suggested that the idea is to build Conservatives enclaves in Liverpool to restore the Conservative vote, I say : "Forget it. Don't come up with ideas and prejudices like that." What is required is real assistance.
I am proud of our people in Liverpool. They are the most vibrant, vital and alive people that you could meet. It is interesting to note that if employers approach the work force in Liverpool in a sensible, co-operative manner, the problems are ironed out very quickly. But if they come with a mailed fist, they get a reaction, arid that has led to many disputes and arguments in the past.
I am asking the Government to be serious about the matter, because we are serious about it. We are concerned. We want the Government to approach this on the basis of seriousness and co-operation, rather than trying to score cheap political points. We do not have to worry about cheap political points in relation to the Conservative party in Liverpool; that has been settled by the people of Liverpool in the recent vote. Let us get away from the argument on the hustings, and talk seriously about what can be done to begin to solve the problems. Inner-city 739 problems are marginally more difficult than outer-city ones, but both are part of the terrible problems of our city. I want us to start working to solve them sensibly and intelligently.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) for the opportunity to discuss the problems of the city of Liverpool. I hope that he will appreciate that I visited the city within days of being appointed to the Department of the Environment with special responsibilities for inner cities. It was appropriate that I should visit Liverpool, for, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I come from the north-west. I was born and brought up in Rochdale, Lancashire. I am also very familiar with Liverpool, although I would not profess to be more familiar with it than the hon. Gentleman. Until I became a Member of Parliament, I visited Liverpool on a weekly basis for the best part of 15 years, and in the past four years, during which I have been privileged to be a Minister in both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment, I have also visited it regularly.
During my visit to Liverpool a week ago, I made it clear that I wished wherever possible to work in partnership. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the words "partnership" and co-operation" on a number of occasions, and I am grateful to him for the tenor of his speech this evening. My visit received wide publicity—the hon. Gentleman touched on that to a degree—and The Times quoted me accurately as saying: We are very anxious to work in partnership with the local authorities". The reply from Liverpool's Councillor Harry Rimmer that same day was: We would hope to meet Mr. Trippier as soon as possible to discuss regeneration in the inner city. I welcome that response. As there is now some hope that we can avoid confrontation and promote co-operation, I am anxious not to dash those hopes this evening in a half-hour debate on the Floor of the House.
I have only a few minutes in which to reply to the debate. However, I want to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I am perfectly willing to visit Liverpool again in the near future; indeed, I hope to visit it again and again. I am also happy to see what has been achieved in any area of that city. I shall reserve my judgment about what I consider to be an achievement, but I shall look and I shall listen. I give another undertaking: that I shall always listen, particularly if it will lead to the regeneration of the local economy of the city of Liverpool.
If the hon. Gentleman is willing to approach these matters in the same spirit, as he seems to have suggested this evening, I hope that he will acknowledge that this 740 Government — as did their predecessor — view the problems of cities such as Liverpool with deep concern. No individual or any collection of individuals has a monopoly of concern about Liverpool.
Changing patterns of world trade, technical innovations, and structural shifts in both manufacturing and service industries have adversely affected the economy and the social fabric of many of the older industrial cities, not only in Britain but in Western Europe and North America. Liverpool is not unique, but I would be the first to acknowledge that its problems are deeper seated and that, rightly, they require the special attention of central Government. Although the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, I believe that the Government have not shirked that responsibility. Nobody seriously believes that Liverpool's problems started in 1979 when a Conservative Government were elected. For most of this decade we have focused our attention on a wide range of measures that are aimed at halting the spiral of decline. Our efforts have been concentrated on finding new ways of improving the quality of the physical environment.
In the remaining minute of this debate, I have to try to convince the hon. Gentleman that most of the inner city schemes to which he referred could not have got off the ground had it not been for the assistance of central Government, and in particular for the assistance of the Department in which I now serve. He accurately quoted me in his local newspaper with regard to small firms, but I have to convince him that the days when very large companies set up large subsidiaries in the centre of Liverpool simply because somebody had asked them to do so are gone.
Because of modern technology and higher productivity per man, the large companies are shedding labour rather than increasing it. Therefore, we have to look to the smaller firms to generate new jobs. In my new role I have a significant part to play in helping with the infrastructure that the hon. Gentleman and I know is vital to Liverpool. I hope to talk to him about that on many occasions and to deal in greater detail with some of the matters to which he drew my attention, particularly those that relate to housing. I shall be happy to discuss them, inside or outside the Chamber, on any occasion.
The financial problems that were created by the last Labour council cannot be resolved by me. The problems that the present council now faces were caused by its predecessor, and it cannot expect any special help from this Government. We are more than ready to work with the council if it is willing to work with us, but if it will not work with us we shall not abandon the people—