HC Deb 28 July 1988 vol 138 cc647-67 10.33 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield)

I hope that Conservative Members will take as much interest in this debate on a region of this country as they did in the preceding lengthy discussion about an obscure and somewhat dubious country in southern Africa. But, as the Benches opposite have completely cleared, I doubt whether that will be the case. It amazes me to see their interest in a particularly dubious country and certainly their lack of interest in a most important region of their own country.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate on the economy of Yorkshire and Humberside. It would have been remiss of the House to go through the first Session after a general election without having a detailed debate on one of this country's most important regions.

I am reminded of a cartoon that appeared on the front page of The Guardian the day after the general election. It depicted a ship, Great Britain, broken into two parts—the north and the south. It showed the passengers on the southern part of the broken ship telling Captain Thatcher, "Sod the others; lets keep going." To me, that cartoon encapsulates much of the Government's attitude to the north, and in particular to areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside.

I propose to draw attention to detailed evidence of very real regional differences that have been added to significantly by the present Government's policies. In particular, I shall consider the problems of Yorkshire and Humberside, and concentrate on my own home area of West Yorkshire and the Wakefield district, although I know that some of my hon. Friends will wish to comment on South Yorkshire and other parts of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. This Government have an appalling record of neglect of the north of England. They have effectively washed their hands of any real concern for the economy and future of the north of England, and of Yorkshire and Humberside in particular.

There has been much debate about whether there is such a thing as a north-south divide. Having spent a lot of time in the south of England since the general election, I know that there are major divisions in London and the south-east—between rich and poor, between the haves and the have-nots—and those divisions have been added to by the Government's policies.

I shall quote at some length from two academic reports that examined the issue of the north-south divide. A report, written by Gudgin and Schofield for the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre in November 1987, says: it remains true that employment opportunities are on average much more restricted in the northern half of the UK … than in the southern half. Consequently the poverty associated with high unemployment is concentrated in these same regions. The report goes on to say: Anticipated growth in national output is sufficient to allow expansion in all parts of the UK. This is not the case however for either employment or population. Large parts of the Industrial North and Periphery are expected to lose rather than gain jobs between now and the year 2000. Again it states: What this amounts to is a strengthening of the North-South divide which has become increasingly evident since the end of the long postwar boom in the mid 1970s. The future contrast is likely to be between a booming southern half of the country and a slowly declining northern half. All the evidence in that report and in others suggests that Government policy is adding to the divisions.

A more recent report by Champion and Green which emerged in January this year, entitled "Local Prosperity and the North-South Divide," says: The most striking result that emerges continually from this analysis is the great extent of the North-South divide. The Amalgamated Index scores reveal an even clearer cleavage on this dimension than did the index developed in the previous study. That was in 1985. All the 35 highest-scoring places … have been found to lie on or south of a line between the Severn estuary and Lincolnshire". The report continues: Over the rest of the country, the poor performance of the principal industrial concentrations remains evident". In particular, the report refers to the sharp deterioration in the South Yorkshire area, to which some of my hon. Friends will refer later.

The report states: the main weight of the evidence points to the North-South divide as the primary dimension in variations in economic health across Britain at the level of the Local Labour Market Area and it also shows that, despite the above observations, the general trend in the 1980s has been a widening of this gap. The report concludes: the problems of the major urban areas and smaller industrial and mining settlements in the north must be solved in situ, or else their regions will gradually wither away.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

rose——

Mr. Hinchliffe

No, I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, he must catch Mr. Speaker's eye and make his own comments.

I have today obtained from the Library the official employment statistics for the Yorkshire and Humberside region. They show that since 1979 male employment in the region has fallen by 201,000, or nearly 17 per cent., and, while female employment has increased by 0.1 per cent., that has been due to increased part-time working. I shall refer later to the implications of that in terms of low pay.

Real figures relating to unemployment are no longer kept, but even the official figures, which have been adjusted downwards perhaps 20 times and which therefore do not tell the whole truth, show that, allowing for discontinuities and seasonal trends, unemployment in June 1988 was twice what it was in June 1979, when the Conservatives came to power. In April 1988, the latest month for which such figures are available, the proportion of those unemployed in the region for a year or longer, at 41.6 per cent. made it the fifth highest in the country. At 33.7 per cent., the proportion of the unemployed aged under 25 was also higher than the national average, being second only to Scotland.

The standard of living figures, measured by per capita GDP, show that Yorkshire and Humberside have consistently been below the United Kingdom national average for the last eight years. The level of investment in manufacturing per employee—a significant factor when considering the products of the region—has been significantly lower than elsewhere in Britain. In 1987 it was £1,284 compared with the national average of £1.500.

Low pay is an issue of vital concern to hon. Members who represent West Yorkshire constituencies. The regional trend figures for 1988 show that, across the board, earnings in Yorkshire and Humberside were well below the national average. I shall quote from two objective and academic reports prepared by the West Yorkshire Low Pay Unit. Having examined the Council of Europe decency threshold for wages, the unit reported that the county had fallen to the bottom of the national pay league.

For example, it discovered that one third of the total full-time work force in the area was low-paid by the standards of that threshold. For part-timers the position was even more desperate, with over 80 per cent. falling into the low-paid category when assessed on an hourly rate. The unit reported that, since 1979, the proportion of the male work force in West Yorkshire receiving low wages had more than doubled, with just under one fifth of full-time adult male workers being low-paid.

For full-time women workers there has been little change in a far more serious problem, with just under 60 per cent. low paid in the West Yorkshire area. Since 1979, average wage levels in West Yorkshire have fallen relative to the British average and the region is now bottom of the pay league with the worst low-pay problem of all nine urban industrial regions in Britain.

In the last few days a case was brought to my attention of a young lady of 18 working as a care worker in a private home for aged persons in Huddersfield being paid a grand total of 50p per hour. That is a disgrace, but that is the reality of the enterprise culture generated by the Government.

In the light of cases like that, one must also consider the extent of illegal underpayment—an issue about which I am deeply concerned in West Yorkshire. Wages inspectorate visits to firms in Yorkshire and Humberside in 1987 found that 26.6 per cent. of workplaces were not paying the legal rate for the job. The total amount owed to workers, such as the young lady whom I mentioned, was £161,225 in that year alone. Yorkshire and Humberside also had the highest percentage wages debt of any region in the country, 42 per cent. of the debt being unpaid.

Interestingly, however, the total number of prosecutions fell significantly, from 16 in 1978 to nine in 1987—no doubt due to deliberate Government policy in support of a free market in wages. There has also been a deliberate attempt to undermine the role of the wages inspectorate region by region. In Yorkshire and Humberside the number of inspectors has been reduced from 14 in 1979 to just seven in 1987.

In my area of West Yorkshire there is particular concern about two industries—textiles and coal—and no doubt colleagues with greater knowledge will wish to add to my comments on those industries. Ten years ago the textile industry nationally employed 405,800 people. Since then, the figure has been reduced by 45 per cent. The Silberston report of 1984 highlighted the precarious future of the textile and clothing industries in the United Kingdom, suggesting that 50,000 jobs might be lost by 1990.

We know to our cost that many of those predictions have already come true. The National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers claimed that 90,000 jobs would be lost following renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement in 1986, and there has been a huge impact on job losses in West Yorkshire. Many Members present for this debate have experienced greater problems with this than I have in Wakefield, but it is clear that the establishment of a textile closure area in West Yorkshire has only partly slowed down and still constitutes a major problem.

In September last year a joint report was produced by the councils of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield on the European regional development fund quota assistance scheme. The report states: the Non-Quota schemes … have not been sufficient to cope with the area's needs and potential for restructuring. The objectives of the ERDS Non-Quota measures relating to countering high levels of unemployment in textile and clothing zones, and improving the unfavourable physical environment … have not been fully achieved. The background continuing vulnerability of the economy and decaying infrastructure have shown that the schemes have been well-intentioned and effective at a micro-economic scale, but have failed at this stage to exploit opportunities to the full and to influence the development of the macro-economy. Having had discussions with the managemets and unions of firms in my constituency, I am aware of the views of those in the textile industry of Government's policy. Only recently I met the management of Poppleton's in Horbury in my constituency, which left me with no doubt that it considers that the Government have made a disgraceful attack on the textile industry. It considers that the industry has been allowed to be swamped by dumped products and to go to the wall. That has been the case in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Government have failed to press the EEC Commission to stop the import of Turkish yarn into the United Kingdom, which has cost nearly 600 jobs in Bradford in the past five months? I am sure that it will cause jobs to be lost in other areas of the textile industry in West Yorkshire.

Mr. Hinchliffe

My hon. Friend is correct. That issue was referred to in the discussions that I had only a few weeks ago with the company that is now closed. It was concerned about the way in which the Government had handled the import of Turkish yarn.

I have spoken in this Chamber about the coal industry on several occasions. The industry is of direct concern to me in my constituency, as it is to other hon. Members who are in their places tonight. I shall draw attention to the problems faced by the Wakefield district as a result of the deliberate attack on and rundown of the industry in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and elsewhere. In 1981, in Wakefield district, there were 17,000 employed in mining in 18 pits. There are now 6,000 employed at five pits. Nearly 2,500 jobs have gone so far this year. The implications for individual families and communities must be obvious to all who are present tonight.

Often overlooked are the knock-on effects of job losses elsewhere in local industry, including service industries. Three major engineering companies in my constituency have been badly affected. There seems to be a lack of perception of the way in which pit closures have a knock-on effect in the engineering industry and the retail trade. Numerous small firms within my constituency provide services as subcontractors to engineering companies and the collieries themselves. We see also what happens to the retail trade within the service sector—this is what is called the local expenditure multiplier effect— when pits close. Even jobs in corner shops are part and parcel of the local economy, which should be taken into account when pit closures take place. In my constituency, nearly 1,500 jobs have been lost in the service sector as a result of pit closures since 1979.

When the Government discuss the coal industry they refer constantly to the public cost of keeping open certain pits that they deem in some instances to be uneconomic. I never cease to marvel at the amount of public money that is used to keep miners unemployed. I shall refer to a report, published recently, which was produced by Kathy O'Donnell of Leeds university for the Wakefield district council. That report deals with the effects of pit closures in the Wakefield area in recent years.

Kathy O'Donnell examined the cost to the public since March 1985, the end of the miners' strike, of pit closures in the Wakefield district. She claims that it cost British Coal £65 million in redundancy payments. It cost Wakefield district council £5.5 million because of the reduction in rate income from collieries and increased demands for services from unemployed miners. It cost central Government £169 million in redundancy and benefit payments. It cost the EC £884,000 in contributions to redundancy schemes. A total of £241 million has been spent since March 1985 to keep people unemployed. That is economic nonsense. The money could have been invested in job creation rather than wasted on unemployment.

In my area, and elsewhere in West Yorkshire and Yorkshire and Humberside, there is deep concern about the coal industry's future under the present Government. Only this week the all-party Select Committee on Energy referred to the implications of electricity privatisation, mentioning the uneven treatment given to nuclear energy and coal: The problems of nuclear have been glossed over while there has becn an emotional hostility towards thc coal industry". During the last financial year, British Coal sold 77 per cent. of its output to the electricity supply industry. The seriousness of the implications for coal are obvious to anyone. According to a report earlier this year by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, 73 per cent. of jobs in the coal industry depend directly on sales to the electricity supply industry. At national level, those sales account for 98,765 jobs. In North Yorkshire, which relates directly to the Wakefield district, where 87 per cent. of output goes to the CEGB for generation, such sales support about 12,500 jobs. In Wakefield metropolitan district alone, the figure is 5,266.

Two very dubious private Bills, now going through the House, are designed to increase capacity for the importing of coal from countries such as South Africa. No doubt Conservative Members will support that move. But what are the implications for West and South Yorkshire of allowing the CEGB to import 8 million tonnes of coal to the Trent and Yorkshire power stations? The Coalfield Communities Campaign estimates that if imports proceed at projected levels, 36 collieries will close, with a loss of 51,544 jobs. The Yorkshire coalfield would be virtually wiped out.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

Was not the EECs refusal to fund the project on Humberside a direct recognition of the damage that it could do to other parts of the region?

Mr. Hinchliffe

My hon. Friend is quite correct. It is a disgrace that the Government have supported—as they clearly have—what was supposedly a private measure. We have noted that certain prominent members of the Government have been present to support those Bills.

I understand that I have been on my feet for rather a long time, so I shall draw my remarks to a rapid conclusion. As well as destroying industry in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, the Government have directly attacked the region's capacity to attract inward investment. An example is the scrapping in 1982 of the industrial development certificate system, which directly prevented the movement of firms from south to north to generate jobs in areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside.

In my own area, Wakefield district, assisted area status was removed in 1982. Urban development grants, which were previously used to generate employment, have been taken away. The Government have hammered local authorities' capacity to assist the generation of indus try at local level.

The fortunes of the coal and textile industries in Yorkshire—especially in West Yorkshire—and Humberside are ample evidence of an economic strategy based on unbridled market forces. Large parts of those regions have been written offby a philosophy that believes that it makes more sense to pay people not to work rather than to invest and create the conditions for job generation.

Last month the Association of Yorkshire and Humberside Chambers of Commerce published a report on the "Yorkshire and Humberside Eurolink", which makes interesting reading. That report states: Our conclusion is that, left to themselves, market forces are unlikely to generate more than a patchy response to the region's infrastructure needs. In the course of our discussions, the region's Chambers have identified a number of priorities in terms of infrastructure. That report discusses in detail the need for public investment in air transport, in the road network, in the railways, in water mains, sewers, factory premises and sites. Those are areas that the Government should address and it is their own supporters, the business men, who are trying to get that message across.

The people of Wakefield, Yorkshire and Humberside, want to work, and it would make economic sense for the Government to enable them to do so.

11.2 pm

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)

I should be understating the case if I said that I differ from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). The picture of Yorkshire and Humberside that he has painted is peculiar to his perceptions and not an accurate representation of the area.

The economy of Yorkshire and Humberside is dependent upon several factors, including the availability and quality of the labour force. I assure the House tbat, on both counts, the regions' scores are excellent. The economy also depends upon industry investing, creating employment and making profit on its investment—the hon. Member for Wakefield may consider profit a rude word. The region and its people must have self-confidence and generate confidence in outsiders. To succeed, the region must be able to offer factory sites, housing and land, which must be affordable. The region must have good communications by road, rail, sea and air. It must have a decent environment and welcome visitors. I submit to the House that the Yorkshire and Humberside region possesses all those qualities.

Bryan Gould, writing about the inner cities in volume two of the magazine Agenda——

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould),

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) realises his mistake.

Mr. Patnick

I meant no insult to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) but I must tell that hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that there is nothing in the magazine to say that he is a Member of Parliament. The magazine just has his picture and his name.

In that magazine the hon. Gentleman states: In both Birmingham and Sheffield Labour councils have teamed up with local business and the voluntary sector to produce exciting redevelopment schemes. Independent and experienced consultants have commended the plans. Each interested group stands to gain from a go ahead and so the real beneficiaries will be the local community as a whole who will see balanced developments comprising housing and economic activity, community facilities and new entertainment and transport links—so much better than the unbalanced developments that have given vast soulless commercial centres that close down at six or large housing estates with nothing for young people to do. Yorkshire and Humberside needs good communications. In a previous debate I referred to that region's links with Manchester airport, which is one of the main outlets for people from that region who wish to visit Europe and America.

The Government have provided the Stockbridge bypass, which runs through the constituency of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), and is used by my constituents. A new motorway is not on the cards, but a new link between the M1 and the M62 is under active consideration.

During my discussions with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Transport he said that he was prepared to contact the Peak national park, Derbyshire county council and Sheffield metropolitan district council to ascertain whether improvements could be made to black spots on Snake pass, the A57 and the Woodhead route. Obviously there is need to open up that area and improve Manchester airport. It is a gateway airport that provides a service to people in Yorkshire and Humberside, who can avoid the problems of having to travel south to Heathrow and Gatwick via the M1 roadworks and the overcrowded M25.

A wider range of intercontinental services out of Manchester would be highly desirable to the business communities of Sheffield, Yorkshire and Humberside. The Minister said that Manchester airport was an important factor when considering the road network between Sheffield and Manchester. Northwest Airlines wishes to serve Boston from Manchester, and American Airlines and Pan-American wish to start New York services. The northern travelling community and those who visit the Yorkshire and Humberside area need those new services.

In his consideration of the north-south divide, the hon. Member for Wakefield missed an article further on in Agenda, which was not written by a Member of Parliament and which states: Looking south across the river from the Armstrong Centre the Metro Centre, symbol of the North East's recent resurgence, shines out like a beacon. The largest out-of-town shopping development in Europe, it features miles of bright shopping malls that attract the shoppers by the coachload from all over the country. The Metro Centre represents a total investment of some £200 million". The article states that the developer also hopes to get the go-ahead for a £50 million Metro Centre style complex in Middlesbrough on a 100-acre site. I do not consider that an example of the north-south divide.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to recognise the north-south divide. In my constituency, which is just below the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is a division between the east and the west of that area, part of which is within the travel-to-work area of Sheffield. In Renishaw, where the pit is being closed, the unemployment rate was 18.6 per cent. in April and had risen by 2.3 per cent. since February. In Eckington south, unemployment is 17 per cent. and in Killamarsh it is 15.4 per cent. In the western part of my constituency unemployment is as low as 5 per cent. and falling in Gosforth Valley and in Dronfield. That reflects social division on a massive scale and shows that many of the problems mentioned by hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) are endemic throughout south Yorkshire.

Mr. Patnick

As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) managed to bring north-east Derbyshire into the debate on Northern Ireland, I suppose he can now move the east midlands a little further down the road into north Yorkshire and Humberside. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) usually speaks for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Barron

I speak with no one's voice but my own. The hon. Gentleman complains about my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire North-East (Mr. Barnes), yet he spends two or three minutes talking about the metro centre in Newcastle, which is considerably further from Humberside and Yorkshire than north-east Derbyshire is.

Mr. Patnick

I did not give the hon. Gentleman credit for being so quick. If he is a little more patient than usual, I shall explain why I used that example.

Unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rother Valley is 14.2 per cent.; in that of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, it is 11.6 per cent.; in that of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), 9.9 per cent.; and in that of the hon. Member for Wakefield, 11.3 per cent. I obtained those figures from the research note in the Library on unemployment in the constituencies.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know what unemployment in Halifax is. In 12 months' time the KP Foods factory there will close with 1,000 job losses, and the Rowntree factory "might not" close in two years' time but if it does 2,500 jobs will be lost.

Mr. Patnick

Sheffield, Central has the fifth highest unemployment rate in the country—23.2 per cent. I know the facts and figures.

I have spoken before about British Rail trains. The east coast main line to Donacaster is a fantastic line. It will soon be electrified. Money has been spent on it. The London to Leeds service is due to open in October this year. Sadly, the line that Sheffield is on, the midland main line, can only be described as atrocious.

When Sheffield had the huge steelworks, a vast number of employees had work. That work disappeared when the works closed down. Sheffield had its problems, and many people were unemployed. Small firms in Sheffield are now springing up, and a survey by the council—it is not of my political thinking—revealed that in the east end of Sheffield new firms were taking on employees, and council statistics show that unemployment in the Sheffield travel-to-work area is falling. [Interruption.]Do Opposition Members wish to intervene? If not, I shall continue.

The official number of unemployed people in Sheffield is coming down—by 3,247 in one year, with the total down by 14 per cent. Success and development create activity that is contagious. Confidence is being restored and employment opportunities are becoming available. The effect is not confined to one area. It is spreading like the ripples of a pebble thrown into a pond and benefiting people in other areas. Sheffield is not alone in that, but it is a classic case of a city that has picked itself up by the bootstraps and got on with the job of making itself great again.

On 21 April 1988, Mr. Winter, the director of land and planning, stated that the total value of schemes for development in Sheffield -I could not believe the figures but they are here for any hon. Member to see—was £1.3 billion. That will give us 30,000 permanent jobs and 10,000 temporary jobs in construction.

The hon. Member for Rother Valley wanted to know what my remarks had to do with Sheffield. There is a project called "Junction 34" in Sheffield. It is a proposed shopping complex with a large number of retail outlets. It will be built on derelict land at a cost of £230 million. Marks and Spencer has shown an interest in the site, as has Savacentre. Debenhams and Sears are interested, too. The site contains 100,000 sq ft of leisure facilities, quite apart from the shopping complex and, believe it or not, parking for 10,000 cars. Yet according to the hon. Member for Wakefield, despair, desolation and doom are imminent.

Mr. Barron

The hon. Gentleman is making great claims about that proposal. Many of the shops that opened in Rotherham town centre under the Rotherham enterprise zone scheme are now closed. It is hardly an area of massive growth.

Mr. Patnick

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. The size of the Rotherham enterprise zone increased and increased. I remember that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State for the Environment, Sheffield was offered an enterprise zone, but it was prepared to accept it only on conditions. I do not know where the hon. Member for Rother Valley gets his facts, but the enterprise zone has had to be increased to accommodate the firms that want to move into the area.

An urban development corporation has been set up in Sheffield. We have received £50 million from the Government, a derelict land grant for Junction 34 and £10 million for facilities at the canal basin. Everything is coming together, and the confidence in the area should be recognised.

An article appeared on 20 July in the commercial and industrial property guide of The Star which said: Record year for regiona) investments is forecast. Rising business confldence in Sheffield could mean another record breaking year for investment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. In the article, Paul Gilmartin said: The record breaking trend looks set to continue. There is a marked increase in business confidence … the current year looks like breaking all records". On the same page, another article said: Shops at heart of inner city renewal … Government guidelines and local authority policies on shopping ate not making the most of the beneflts that retailing can bring, says Stuart Robinson, of Hillier Parker Planning. I refer the hon. Member for Wakefield to a most interesting article that appeared in the Yorkshire Post on 28 July. It says: Factory values surge as industry expands. A surge in the value of factories and warehouses during 1988 and a shortage of building to meet presenl: demand is reported in West Yorkshire by the Leeds office of King and Co. During the past 12 months, approximately 1,500,000 sq ft of new buildings have been constructed in the region for occupiers who include William Morrison, Northern Foods, Thorn EMI and Uniroyal. I said earlier that firms such as Marks and Spencer will invest, not in areas that it thinks are declining but in areas that are improving. Such an area is Yorkshire and Humberside.

The article continues: There is a dire shortage of sites capable of development with buildings in excess of 40,000 sq ft"— There are no prizes for guessing where that is— but at Wakefield 80 acres of imainly agricultural land is about to be brought into warehouse and industrial use. The land adjoins the Normanton and Whitwood Industrial Hstates at Junction 31 of the M26, midway between the M1 and A1". The list of firms that have moved into that area is quite unbelievable. The article says: More than 215 acres have already been developed at this location where occupiers include Panasonic UK, Associated Fresh Foods, Hewlett Packard, Argos Distributors, Linfood, Tibbett and Britten, Miller Mining, Nestle (UK), Burtons Gold Medal Biscuits, the Halifax Building Society and Sleepeezee.

Mr. Hinchliffe

The hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. Where there is the infrastructure—it is to the credit of the Labour-controlled local authority in Wakefield that those firms have come to the area—it is possible to attract inward investment. That is precisely the point that I made in my speech.

Mr. Patnick

I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech and it contained nothing but gloom and despondency. Anybody would think that all we have in the region, apart from the hon. Member for Halifax, are KP nuts and coal mining. There is more to Yorkshire and Humberside than those two industries.

Mrs. Mahon

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Halifax and Marks and Spencer. Would he care to give his comments on Reliance Hosiery, which employs 600 people in Halifax? That company is deeply concerned now that interest rates are rising so high. When I visited the company I was told that it was worried. It supplies Marks and Spencer and is threatened with takeover. It really is doom and gloom in Halifax at present. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me some good news about one of the factories, I should be happy to hear it.

Mr. Patnick

No doubt the hon. Lady can put her own case. I thought that she had something to say.

Mrs. Mahon

The hon. Gentleman will ensure that we do not have time to speak.

Mr. Patnick

I am sorry about that. I recollect that it was not so long ago that I sat in the Chamber trying to participate in a debate when the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was speaking. One would have thought that he had suddenly become deaf to those of us facing him, but that he had an ear in the back of his head and was able to hear his colleagues. At least I have given hon. Members a chance to intervene, even the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. I have been more than generous. —[Interruption.]It is always good to hear the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whether he is sitting, standing or keeping quiet.

On behalf of Yorkshire and Humberside I should like to argue for the Channel tunnel link—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Halifax wish to speak?

Mrs. Mahon

I asked about Marks and Spencer.

Mr. Patnick

I shall sit down and allow the hon. Lady to speak, but she does not stand when I offer her the Floor.

The Channel tunnel link is needed for Yorkshire and Humberside.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Mr. Patnick

I did not think that the hon. Gentleman was a little Englander. I thought he accepted that the time left to the Civil Aviation Authority and airport officials was short. They cause so much inconvenience to people at Manchester, Luton and east midlands airports when they go on strike. When the tunnel is built there will be another way to reach the continent. Time is running out for those people who, every year around holiday time, incon-venience travellers, not just from my constituency, but from Yorkshire and Humberside.

The chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Confederation of British Industry said: The Government and BR need to commit themselves to a direct link". Just so that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby knows how even-handed I am, I shall tell the House that the Trades Union Congress warns that the area will lose out further to the south unless it has such a link. Both sides of the great dichotomy—the CBI and the TUC—recognise that, but no doubt the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, as ever, will know more about it.

In conclusion—everybody will be pleased to hear that —the economy in Yorkshire and Humberside is good and improving. We have all the ingredients that I have listed. It is time that residents appreciated that they have initiative, ability and talent and that the banner of Yorkshire and Humberside, together with initiatives, current and planned, should enable us to go forward. If we appreciate that, the confidence can become infectious. We must draw on the region's strengths—the availability of work and opportunity. Good news will travel. The upward climb of Yorkshire and Humberside will continue.

11.23 pm
Mr. Allen McKay (Barasley, West and Penistone)

It is refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) praise Sheffield council, of which he used to be a member. It is one of the local authorities that has been laced by the Govemment on many occasions for the way it runs the city. It was laced irrespective of the fact that the auditor said that it was one of the best-run cities in the country and proved that the authority was right in the direction it was taking.

The hon. Member for Hallam referred to metro developments and to the amount of money that is being spend on Junction 34. It is true that developments are taking place—but they all seem to be shopping and leisure developments. What about manufacturing industry? Why should that not make progress as well? We should turn our minds to those questions during the debate.

It is all very well for other developments to take place, but they depend on people being able to spend money. They are all consumer-oriented. We do not have the manufacturing industry to make the money or the people in employment to earn it, so no one can spend it.

Up to a point I applaud some of the things that have happened because of enterprise zones. They have proved a point. However, only last week a young man asked why we in Barnsley could not have the same facilities as other areas or the same benefits to industry in the form of rents and rates and developments. By the time that he had finished talking, it was quite obvious that although the industry in which he worked in Dodworth had not been there very long, it was upping sticks and moving because it could get preferential rates and development rates in an enterprise zone not too far away. Developments in enterprise zones mean, by and large, that there have been fewer, a lack of, or a rundown in, developments elsewhere.

I agree that all is not doom and gloom in Yorkshire and Humberside, but I am concerned when I see the wealth and prosperity in the south and south-east, and the way in which that reflects on the area in general. In makes me ask why some of that prosperity is not coming north and why it is not in Yorkshire and Humberside. We are one of the most beautiful areas in England environmentally——

Mr. Barry Field

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why, according to the House of Commons Library statistics to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) referred, the Isle of Wight has an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent. and why in the recent wages survey we were the third lowest and only just behind Northera Ireland? We should like to see some of the prosperity of Yorkshire come south, to the Isle of Wight.

Mr. McKay

I can add to that, because the area that I am talking about is not the third lowest; it is the second. I am referring to the area in which I live and for which I am developing my argument—[Interruption.] Oh yes, we have a male unemployment rate of 27 per cent. Hon. Members can study that fact as much as they want. I am referring to Government figures, which can be found in censuses and in the employment figures. If the hon. Member for Hallam waits and lets me develop my argument, he will see what I am talking about. He is jumping in when he should not not do so. I think that he now realises that he made a mistake in jumping in then. I hope that he will realise that more as I continue.

I am asking why that wealth, prosperity and employment do not come north. I accept that, although there is a north-south divide, parts of the south are probably less prosperous than some parts of the north. Parts of the north are not too badly off, thank you very much, but, by and large—and that is what we are talking about—it is easier to get work in the south than it is in the north. Manufacturing and other industries are moving to the south and to the south-east, not to the north. That is what we must put our minds to.

Instead of considering only unemployment, we should look also at those in employment because those statistics are probably a better reflection than the unemployment figures. When one considers the figures for those in employment in Great Britain and compares them with the figures for Yorkshire and Humberside, one can see what quite clearly is happening. In agriculture, forestry and fisheries, the figures are almost equal. In Great Britain there has been a drop of 18.9 per cent. and in Yorkshire and Humberside the figure is 18.8 per cent.

For energy and water supplies there has been a drop of 28.7 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole, but a drop of 35.2 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside. In manufacturing, there has been a drop of 16.6 per cent. in Great Britain against a drop of 22.4 per cent. in Yorkshire and Humberside. For construction, the figures are 9.8 per cent. and 6.6 per cent. respectively. Only in the service industries has there been a regeneration of employment. In Great Britain there has been an increase of 9.1 per cent. and in Yorkshire and Humberside 12 per cent.

The manufacturing side of Yorkshire and Humberside has disappeared. The steelworks, collieries and engineering plants have gone. Over the period during which the figures that I have quoted were calculated, investment in the United Kingdom as a whole was 30 per cent. In Yorkshire and Humberside it dropped to 22 per cent. That clearly shows that investment is not coming to the area.

A survey was taken which covered Great Britain and in particular focused on Yorkshire and Humberside, south Yorkshire and my constituency. It found that, of all the areas in Britain, Yorkshire and Humberside was the worst. It futher found that in Yorkshire and Humberside, south Yorkshire was the worst. It showed that there is a difference in the rates of unemployment in south Yorkshire and in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Last year, the unemployment rate on Humberside was 14.1 per cent. In north Yorkshire it was only 9.1 per cent. Therefore, as I said earlier, some parts are worse than others. In south Yorkshire, the rate was 17 per cent. and in west Yorkshire it was 11.9 per cent. In some of the areas in my constituency, there is a male unemployment rate of 27 per cent. The rate varies throughout my constituency and is 18 per cent. in parts and as low as 6 per cent. which is fairly normal for the area.

I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will be brief. I want to consider the difference between the south-east and Yorkshire and Humberside in the annual average unemployment rates. It is easy to see the changes that have taken place since 1979. They are not so drastic in the south-east, but they are drastic in Yorkshire and Humberside. It is also clear from the figures that when some parts of the country are coming out of the recession fairly quickly, the Yorkshire and Humberside area is coming out of it sluggishly and slowly. It needs pump-priming.

I believe that certain things should happen. Major local authorities have investment companies which, by and large, have been very successful in bringing limited prosperity to their areas. However, the Government have issued a consultation paper on local government investment in companies which clearly shows that they are looking at this area. It would be wrong of the Government to do what the document suggests. The investment companies represent part of local government that is a success. If central Government see success in local government, they want to take it away.

The Government must look again at dereliction grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) raised that point in a parliamentary question. Dereliction grants are working the wrong way in Yorkshire and Humberside. Unless those grants are used to clear dereliction for environmental reasons as well as for the hard reasons, Yorkshire and Humberside will be hit.

The Channel tunnel must have through trains to the north. It looks as if all the infrastructure for the Channel tunnel is going to the south. We are talking about fast links between the Channel tunnel and London. We need a fast Iink between the tunnel and the north. We want marshalling yards and customs sheds in Yorkshire and Humberside,

The infrastructure in Yorkshire and Humberside badly needs replacing; that includes the water mains, sewers and roads. The airports, Leeds and Bradford, Humberside and Manchester—many people from Yorkshire and Humberside use Manchester airport—need regional money for expansion. There is also the cross-Pennine motorway. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Transport will receive a lot of letters from members of the Green party, who will accuse him of ripping up the countryside.

Those are just a few of the matters, and it is a pity that we do not have another hour and a half in which to develop the arguments further.

11.35 pm
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)

I felt impelled to take part briefly in this debate, because I did not recognise the picture presented by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I believe that during the past few years, we have seen great improvements in the infrastructure and the prospects for industry and for jobs in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

The textile industry bears little relation to the one which the hon. Gentleman gave the impression of knowing. The decline in jobs has been going on for far longer than the past nine years. I am sure he will recognise that there has been a decline in employment in the clothing and textile industry for many years. It was caused not so much by the actions of any Government—Labour or Conservative—as by changes in technology and in the need to compete with many other countries.

During recent years, that decline has levelled out, largely due to the efforts of the textile industry itself—by improved design, by better marketing and by commitment by management and work force alike to make the industry compete effectively. That has taken place during the past few years, and has enabled the industry to offer more jobs. It is certainly true that many companies have had to reduce their work force, but, if they had resisted the urge to modernise, I am quite convinced that the number of jobs in the industry today would be much smaller.

The Yorkshire and Humberside area has a great reservoir of skills—it is a superb environment, as hon. Members have said—and in the next few months it will benefit from a great new asset—the electrification of the east coast main line. The message that should go forth from this debate is not that Yorkshire and Humberside is an area in decline, but that it is looking to people in industry and enterprise throughout Britain and, indeed, abroad, who recognise its assets, to come to the region.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wakefield spoke as he did, and that other Opposition Members share his view. People listen to what is said in the House and will hear the impression given of our region. If they feel that the area is declining, they are far less likely to put their money and their resources into it. If the message goes out that not only is the area not in decline, but that there are pockets that are expanding fast—that that impetus can spread and the region can and will expand rapidly given the will—we shall be halfway to success. That is the message that I want to go out tonight, and I am afraid that it is a very different message from that which we hear so often in the House and outside from Opposition Members.

11.39pm

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

I would like to comment briefly on the somewhat myopic view of some Conservative Members about Yorkshire and Humberside. I remind hon. Members that there are good things in Yorkshire and Humberside and good things in my constituency. However, unemployment throughout the region on the adjusted figures for May 1988 was 10.1 per cent., which is more than 237,000 people out of work.

There are other casualties of the past eight years. There are 25,000 people on community programme schemes in Yorkshire and Humberside, and some 88 per cent. of them are on part-time schemes. That hardly represents a healthy income going into a household, especially if it is the only one. More than 14,000 people are on the enterprise allowance scheme, and more than 42,000 are on youth training schemes.

Mr. Patnick

rose——

Mr. Barron

No, I shall not give way. I know that the hon. Gentleman gave way to me, but I do not have much time.

The success rate of YTS in the Rotherham area is below 30 per cent. in terms of young people coming off schemes and going into full-time work. It is no use trying to gloss over these figures. They are not just statistics. They are people, many of whom live in households in what is deemed to be poverty. We must debate these issues to let those people know that we have not forgotten them, although we are talking about growth in the region.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) invite people to come to the region. The Minister is aware that Opposition Members have been instrumental in bringing it to his attention. Between 1978–79 and 1986–87, regional development grant to Yorkshire and Humberside was cut by 50 per cent. Earlier this year, it was abolished, and it is now to be awarded selectively. I am worried that people who did not come in great numbers before may not come at all now because of that reduction. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Wearing my hat as the chairman of the Yorkshire group of Labour Members, I would like to tell the Minister that we have met many people from the region during the past 12 months. We have met people from the British Road Federation who are worried about the Sheffield-Manchester link and routes in the Aire valley, and are anxious that the Al-Ml link should go ahead as speedily as possible now that it has received some commitment from the Government.

People are also worried about infrastructure such as railways. They are anxious that, since it looks as though we shall have the Channel tunnel, we should not lose out. We must ensure that, at least in one part of the region, we have an inland port, a Customs clearance depot or a major area where freight can be put on trains to be taken directly under the Channel, so that we can participate in some of the expenditure that will be made.

Has anything been done in relation to the correspondence that the Minister had with the Yorkshire and Humberside development association about larger factory units? If we have made any headway, the Minister will know that the size of factory units is just as important as their number. We want to ensure that the right type of units are being built in the region to help us attack poverty and unemployment there as soon as practicable.

11.43 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

We are tonight talking about the most beautiful, the best and certainly the biggest part of the country. We are talking about God's own county. It is extraordinary that the Minister has had the insensitivity to wear the red rose of Lancashire in his lapel. That shows either extraordinary insensitivity or a declaration of support for the trans-Pennine group, which is dedicated to the development of both sides of the Pennines.

The area, of which we on this side of the House are so proud because so many of us come from it, has been badly hit by the Government. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) said—he placed his hopes on shopping centres in a speech that was more of a working men's club comedy routine that should have had a "com sec" rather than a Deputy Speaker in charge of it—our destiny lies in industry. It lies in making things and selling them to the world.

Yorkshire and Humberside is the industrial heart of Great Britain. It generates the power, produces the coal, the steel and the textiles, and does the fishing. That is where our destiny lies, and it is the part of the economy which has been so grievously hit by the Government, particularly by the economic policies that they pursued from 1979 to 1983. In that period the Government closed one fifth of our manufacturing capacity and lost nearly one third of our manufacturing jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out, that process of closures continues. The Government have inflicted damage on Yorkshire and Humberside from which we will take years to recover and for which the Government will never be forgiven.

The region is the first to suffer and the last to recover. Even now unemployment in Humberside is 12 per cent., which is 3 per cent. over the British average. In Grimsby it is 12 per cent. on the Government's figures and 17 per cent. on the real figures. In Grimsby, male unemployment is 15.7 per cent. Grimsby is not a development area and it is difficult to see why it has been robbed of the urban programme status which it had.

The whole area desperately needs new development and new jobs, yet the Government have only handicapped our efforts to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. They have erected obstacles. We have to compete against the superior power of the Scottish Development Agency to attract industry. We have to face the fact that when local government in Sheffield and Grimsby tries to encourage development, the Government hamstring it, imposes financial penalties on it and stops its efforts. We have no speculative factory development in Grimsby. The Government will not build, English Estates has not, and Grimsby council is not allowed to build because of the screws on its capital expenditure programme. The control of local government spending, which will get stronger, inhibits local authority efforts to provide facilities in which industry can develop.

We see from the capital expenditure consultation programme that the Government are foreshadowing further cuts in local government spending, and from the local government business paper that they are thinking of curtailing the current range of economic incentives that local authorities can provide. It is ludicrous to destroy industry as the Government have done, particularly in our area—that destruction has had particularly severe effects in the manufacturing heart of Britain—and not allow local authorities to rebuild those sectors.

Now we face another threat. The country is characterised by a Government from, for and by the south-east at the expense of areas such as Yorkshire and Humberside. As the prosperity in the south-east trickles down to our region—the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) is correct to say that there are symptoms of a revival—we are belatedly getting the tail end of that improvement. Just as that is washing north, house prices are beginning to improve, unemployment is falling and development is beginning, the Government are stopping the process because of overheating in the south-east.

If there is overheating, it is certainly restricted to that part where house prices are reaching record levels and where there are skill shortages. Northerners are being lured down the Ml and the rail system to work in the south-east and go home at the weekends. That is where there is congestion. We in the north have none of those pressures. We need the development and the overspill, yet the north will be punished for the sins of the south-east.

The real problem is one of imbalance between areas. We need to spread development fairly and evenly, and to use the social capital and skills of the population. Tragically, this is the end of the golden weather for the Government. We are now beginning a massive deflation because of the size of the deficit in overseas and manufactured trade which the Government have allowed to develop because of their over-valuation of sterling.

That massive deflation—the increase in interest rates and the curtailment of economic activity because of overheating in the south-east—will penalise Yorkshire and Humberside quite disproportionately. It will mean one of two things. We may have an economic policy involving a high exchange rate maintained by high interest rates. In other words, we shall be paying the foreigner high interest rates to bring his money to this country to close a gap that we cannot now close by manufacturing exports. Such a policy would inflict further severe damage on manufacturing industry and therefore disproportionate damage on Yorkshire and Humberside.

If that policy does not work, foreigners will see the real state of health of the economy—that is how weak it is— and we shall have a sterling crisis by the end of the year, which will mean astronomical interest rates to defend the pound. Either way, in the interests of protecting the financial economy, which is concentrated in the south-east of England, the north will suffer disproportionately and Yorkshire and Humberside and the manufacturing industry that is so important to us will be severely hit. That is a prospect that we look forward to with dread in Yorkshire and Humberside, and it could only come from a Government who do not know the area and who do not know the real world of manufacturing.

As I said, Yorkshire and Humberside has suffered disproportionately. A Labour Government will reconstruct the manufacturing industry in the manufacturing heart of this country. That will benefit our area, just as it has suffered under this Government. As part of that process of redevelopment, we shall give Yorkshire and Humberside the power to control and manage its own destiny. We shall do so through regional government. We shall give the regions the power to manage their own economies. We shall do so through regional development agencies on the pattern of the Scottish Development Agency, and by giving back the regional incentives that the Government have taken away to allow those areas to attract back the industry that has been lost.

We are proud of our area. We are proud of being Yorkshiremen and Humbersiders. We once led the country. We were once at the industrial heart of this country and we shall be again. Our message to the Government, who have done so much damage to industry, put in a dialect that the Minister will not understand, is "Gi'up, gi'ower and gerrout."

11.52pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins)

I make no apology for wearing the red rose of Lancashire in the context of a debate on matters relating to Yorkshire and Humberside. It must gall the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and his hon. Friends to realise that I am a northern Member and a northern Minister; my constituency is even further north than that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. It is a fallacy that my hon. Friends and I do not appreciate the problems of Yorkshire.

I am delighted that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) have been able to participate. I know that others among my hon. Friends are interested in the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who I guess is waiting for the debate on the Settle-Carlisle railway, and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), who has recently joined us on the Front Bench and who is to be the Yorkshire Whip. I know how much my hon. Friends disagree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on introducing this debate. It has been fascinating to hear both sides of the story. The Yorkshire and Humberside region makes an important contribution to the national economy, accounting for about 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. GDP per person in 1984 was a little over £4,000—about 12 per cent. below the national average.

The area has a mixed economy, which has made parts of the region vulnerable to cyclical trends in traditional industries. Nevertheless, there have been positive developments—to which some of my hon. Friends have referred. Areas of recent growth include the petrochemical industry on Humberside. Humberside has also seen growth in the frozen food sector. There has been considerable growth in financial and professional services centred on Leeds. Indeed, the importance of Leeds as a regional centre for such services has been growing steadily.

The House may find it interesting if I quote from a recent study by the CBI investigating industry in the area. I shall touch on just some of the headings to which the CBI report refers. Referring to demand and output in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, the CBI report says: The general level of order intake is better than earlier this year. The home market is particularly buoyant … The area bounded by Leeds, Harrogate and York is being referred to by the building industry as 'the golden triangle.' Indeed, I was in Doncaster only last week when the Labour leader there referred to Doncaster as "boom town".

The report goes on: So far as steel is concerned, production remains at a high level …Coal—the super pits are producing good levels … Mechanical engineering—order books are better … Electrical and electronic engineering—very busy … Civil engineering—plenty of work about…House building in the private sector is having a very good period, with demand outstripping supply in many areas…Chemicals—this sector remains busy. Much attention has been paid to the subject of clothing. The report says: Companies are very busy … Textiles generally— working at high capacity levels … Telecom—performing at above planned levels, reflecting the increased affluence of the region … Rail services are well used, with InterCity being particularly busy … Confidence remains high. Ambitious investment plans for machinery and buildings will be followed through. Surely that tells a different tale from the one that Opposition Members have been asking us to believe. What I have listed are the facts as presented by the CBI, an organisation which has been talking to people in the manufacturing and service industries. I appreciate that there are some difficulties and problems—inevitably there will be—but that is what the CBI is saying.

Those facts are borne out by the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Unit, the report of which has been quoted by other hon. Members, as they should do because the unit has at heart the interests of the region. It reports: The investment outlook is encouraging, with many companies planning significant expansion projects covering both buildings and capital equipment. English Estates reports a 20 per cent. increase in factory sales and lettings in south Yorkshire, with increasing demands throughout the region. Unemployment is falling; it was 10.6 per cent. at the beginning of the year and was 101 per cent. in May. The fact that Opposition Members have referred to a shortage of factory space—a matter of which I am aware—reveals success in this region, as in others. Had the hon. Member for Great Grimsby been speaking from the Opposition Front Bench some years ago, he would no doubt have been complaining bitterly about empty factories. Now that we have the factories full and there is a shortage, we face a different problem. But it is a problem of success.

While I agree that there are difficulties, investment in and the achievements of the area are particularly good. In tourism, for example, Bradford now has a tourism development action plan and has been successful in developing and marketing its tourism assets. One need only consider the city's historical, literary and industrial heritage, its proximity to beautiful countryside and attractions such as the national museum of film, photography and television, to appreciate the potential of a place such as Bradford.

Sheffield, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam represents in part, is shortly to host the world student games, which will be the largest event of its type in the United Kingdom to date. All in all, one can tell a number of success stories.

I come to the problems of Wakefield. It is inevitable that when one decides to accord assistance to some areas rather than others there will be those who feel hard done by. That is particularly the case when, as has happened in the Wakefield area, there have been major closures in a particular industry over a relatively short period. There is little doubt that the loss of 11,000 jobs in the Wakefield area has had a major impact.

It is possible that Wakefield might be eligible for assistance from the European regional development fund, which is currently being restructured. Details of the eligibility of particular areas remain to be settled, and it is too early to predict the outcome, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will keep the interests of Wakefield closely in mind during the negotiations. In the meantime, Wakefield will continue to receive aid from the European Coal and Steel Community and to benefit from its priority status under the European social fund.

Wakefield has sought to make a case to have the status of the area reviewed. To avoid raising false hopes, I should say at the outset that it remains our intention, as stated in the White Paper, to keep the present map in place for the lifetime of this Parliament. The map was fixed at the end of 1984 after exhaustive discussions and representations. There are very good reasons for doing that. In setting up assisted areas, the primary intention is to influence private sector investment decisions, which have to be taken with a view to the medium to long term. To change the shape of the map too frequently would weaken the extent to which investment decisions can be influenced and thus undermine the purpose of the policy.

I accept that particular problems are being experienced in the Wakefield area, especially in the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work areas where many of the coal closures have taken place. It may be small consolation now, but when the time comes to review the map the case for changing the status of the Wakefield area will be taken into account particularly strongly. In the meantime, I know that officials of my Department and of other Departments in the region are in touch with officers in Wakefield to see what can be done for the area within current constraints. The hon. Member for Wakefield may be aware that I also met a delegation representing the enormous Conservative group on the council about these matters, so I am fully aware of the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that within the limits that I have specified we shall do what we can to understand and face the problems in the Wakefield area.

The Yorkshire and Humberside region has good long-term economic prospects. Its assets include specialised sites suitable for industry requiring access to deep water, modern ports and good access to continental markets—factors that will be of increasing importance in 1992, with all the changes that will follow from that. The region so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has a work force with a great deal to offer in a wide variety of areas.

Like my hon. Friends, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss what has been going on in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, but the Opposition must be careful not to talk down an area which in their own comments they recognise as an attractive and beautiful region both physically and geographically as well as in industrial and other ways. They must recognise that the strengths of the area have to be sold, rather than the weaknesses. If they continue to work as hard in that regard as those of my hon. Friends who so ably represent constituencies throughout the region, I am convinced that the strength that is so important to the region and to the country will continue in the future.

It is said that English cricket suffers when Yorkshire cricket is down. The sooner Yorkshire cricket reaches the standard that we have come to expect, the stronger will be the future of English cricket. I caution the whole House about the importance of this subject in the foreseeable future.