§ 12. Mr. MartlewTo ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the level of regional development grants and regional selective assistance in (a) 1978–79 and (b) the last financial year.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggIn 1978–79, expenditure in Great Britain on regional development grants and regional selective assistance was £416.9 million and £104.5 million respectively, while in 1989–90 expenditure was £203.9 million and £197.8 million respectively at current prices.
§ Mr. MartlewIn the northern region, development grants have been cut in real terms by £118 million a year and selective assistance has been cut by 75 per cent. As unemployment in the north-west is still much higher than 1979, what justification can the Government give for that? With unemployment rising and industry being hit by high interest rates and inflation, will the Minister reconsider putting more money into the north-west to stimulate investment?
§ Mr. HoggThis is an interesting question because it points to two things: first, a lack of knowledge and, secondly, a change in the Labour party programme, as it is disclosed. The hon. Gentleman spoke of rising employment. In his constituency, which is an unassisted area, between March 1989 and March 1990 unemployment fell by 21.4 per cent.
§ Mr. Nigel GriffithsWhat about 1979?
§ Mr. HoggI said 1989 to 1990. In the adjoining constituency of Workington, which is an assisted area, between March 1989 and March 1990 unemployment fell by 28.3 per cent., so the policy is working. The hon. Gentleman has disclosed a new spending programme for the Labour party. If he looks at page 16 of his party's policy document he will find that it mentions only a reshaping of regional grants. He wants to bring back regional development grants, but that would cost £1 billion. I do not suppose that that has been provided for in the spending plans.
§ Mr. YeoDoes my hon. and learned Friend agree that if anyone were to advocate an increase in development grants and selective assistance, to be paid for exclusively by extra taxes on one person in 15, the burden placed on those taxpayers would be crippling and the disincentive effects and the likely increase in unemployment would be substantial?
§ Mr. HoggI entirely agree. The programme disclosed in the Labour party document is only a small part of its spending programmes. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has made it quite plain that he wants to bring back regional development grants, but it would cost £1 billion to reinstate them to 1978–79 figures. Is that included in the bill of £50 billion, which independent experts have assessed as the cost of the Labour party programme?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe Minister looked quite pathetic in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). He completely misrepresented what my hon. Friend said.
What discussions are going on between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment about West Cumbria's application for objective 2 assistance? Does he realise that we desperately need that assistance in West Cumbria because we face as many as 3,000 or 4,000 redundancies following the run down of the Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant construction project? We need the money and that help in West Cumbria. What will the Minister do?
§ Mr. HoggThat is an extraordinary question. I have had the pleasure of telling the House that unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency fell by 28.3 per cent. between March 1989 and March 1990. For him to describe me as "pathetic" when I am giving good news represents a curious reversal of values.
§ Mr. SumbergInstead of listening to the dismal Jimmies opposite, will my hon. and learned Friend pay a visit to the north-west of England, where he will see a revival of economic activity, a reversal of the north-south divide and a reduction in unemployment? The only threat to all that would be the election of the Labour party to government.
§ Mr. HoggMy hon. Friend is manifestly right. If a Government try to introduce a spending programme that will cost £50 billion—according to independent assessments—it will lead to rampant inflation and massive taxation. However, that is the policy of the Labour party, and we shall remind the electorate of that fact until they are fed up with it.
§ Mr. CabornIn future, will the Minister obtain his briefings from the Department of Trade and Industry, and not from the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)? If he did, we might hear a little more sense. Does he agree that since the last Labour Government there have been cuts in regional grant amounting to £660 million a year? Such cuts lead to headlines such as
British cities struggle in prosperity league.The Government have excelled even themselves by relegating 15 of our great cities to the bottom of the European league: we now have the worst record in the European Community.Rather than attacking the Labour party's policy, the Minister should read the Audit Commission's report on the Government's performance in dispensing aid. The report calls it
a patchwork quilt of complexity which cannot be understood either by business or local authorities.Will the Minister arrange for a debate on the report?
§ Mr. HoggI know that the Labour party is upset about the way in which the public are beginning to realise what is in its programme. Let me tell the House—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. FoulkesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Order Paper refers to "Questions" to the Secretary of State: that means that Ministers must answer questions. This little arrogant shit has not answered a single question.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that word immediately, and must not repeat it.
§ Mr. FoulkesWhich word do you want me to withdraw, Mr. Speaker—little, arrogant or shit?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman knows which word: the last.
§ Mr. FoulkesI withdraw the last word.
§ Mr. HoggAll this whingeing and whining from Opposition Members is amusing and pathetic. We are now costing the Labour party's programme. Let me add that it was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who attached a bill of £50 billion, but the independent experts Midland Montagu Research.