HL Deb 25 June 1969 vol 303 cc170-7

3.50 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like now to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, and I would apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Elgin for coming at such a tense moment before his maiden speech which your Lordships are looking forward to hearing.

The Statement, a further Statement on the Report of the Committee on Intermediate Areas, under the chairmanship of Sir Joseph Hunt, is as follows:

"In my Statement on April 24 I described the new intermediate areas in broad terms, leaving the precise boundaries to be determined after consultation with the Regional Economic Planning Councils. These consultations have now been completed and the views of other bodies have also been taken into account.

"There is now available in the Vote Office"—

in our case the Printed Paper Office—

"the full list of the 54 employment exchange areas to be included in the seven new intermediate areas—North East Lancashire, Yorkshire Coalfield, North Humberside, Notts/Derby Coalfield, South East Wales, Plymouth and Leith. I am also circulating the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

"I said on April 24 that the cost of the measures would be met out of the very substantial and growing sums being spent on assistance to industry in the development areas. The savings required will be obtained by the withdrawal of the selective employment additional payment of 7s. 6d. a week at present payable in the development areas. This will cease to be paid from the beginning of the financial year 1970–71.

"This does not affect in any way payment of the regional employment premium of 30s. a week. I reaffirm our commitment to continue to pay the R.E.P. in the development areas for the minimum period of seven years from 1967. This is an important part of their very large preference in assistance to industry over the rest of the country.

"The House will recall that we propose to make available for industry in the new intermediate areas assistance of the kind provided in development areas under the Local Employment Acts, excluding those loans and grants for general purposes which are made on the advice of B.O.T.A.C. A Bill will be introduced as early as possible next Session to give effect to our proposals. Meantime, it is im- portant that development should go ahead in the new intermediate areas.

"First, from now on industrial development certificates will be made available in the intermediate areas on the same basis as in the development areas.

"Second, in respect of projects started in the intermediate areas from to-day, the Board of Trade will be ready to consider applications for building grants. Guidance to industry on this and on certain necessary conditions is being issued to-day.

"Third, eligible local authority schemes for derelict land clearance approved after April 24, or where the main work started after that date, will be considered for 75 per cent. capital grants. These grants will be available in the new intermediate areas and the other areas which I mentioned in my previous Statement. The Opencast Executive of the National Coal Board has valuable experience in reclamation. We shall encourage local authorities to make full use of the Executive's services as technical adviser and agent for the execution of their Schemes.

"The Hunt Committee rightly emphasise the human assets of the regions and the importance of industrial training. The Government will provide in the new intermediate areas the full range of development area training grants and other training assistance. Further, the Government have considered in the light of the Hunt Report the level of benefits paid to men and women moving to new jobs away from their homes with Government assistance. The Government are arranging to bring these benefits into line with present-day requirements. A further announcement on the details and timing of these measures will be made shortly.

"Regional policy is essentially a matter of priorities and we have had to apply very strict criteria in determining the new intermediate areas and their precise boundaries. In conclusion, I wish to stress the Government's continued determination to press ahead with the progress being made in the development areas; and our intention to maintain our close watch over the changing needs of all the regions and areas of the country."

Following is the list of employment exchange areas to be included in the intermediate areas:

North-East Lancashire Intermediate Area: Accrington, Bacup, Blackburn, Burnley, Colne, Darwen, Great Harwood, Haslingden, Nelson, Padiham, Rawtenstall; and also Barnoldswick(1) and Todmorden(1).

Yorkshire Coalfield Intermediate Area: Askern, Barnsiey, Castleford, Dinnington, Doncaster, Goldthorpe, Hemsworth, Hoyland, Knottingley, Maltby, Mexborough, Normanton, Pontefract, Rotherham, Royston, South Kirkby, Thorne, Wakefield, Wombwell; and also Worksop(2).

North Humberside Intermediate Area: Beverley, Goole, Hessle, Hull.

Notts/Derby Coalfield Intermediate Area: Alfreton, Heanor, Sutton-in-Ashfield.

South-East Wales Intermediate Area: Abergavenny(3), Barry, Cardiff, Cwmbran, Llantwit Major, Newport and Newport Docks, Penarth.

Plymouth Intermediate Area: Devonport, Gunnislake, Plymouth, Plympton, Saltash.

Leith Intermediate Area: Leith.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating to us this Statement that has been made in another place. But is he aware that it tells Parliament very little that is new, except in so far as it closely defines the seven intermediate areas and informs us that the cost of the new programme is to be met by withdrawing the S.E.T. premium of 7s. 6d. a week in the development areas? Does he recollect that in the previous Statement on April 24 it was said that the Government's programme when in full operation would cost nearly £20 million a year, whereas the S.E.T. premium in the development areas was stated by the Hunt Committee to bring in £25 million a year? It is therefore the case that what this announcement means in terms of money is that the development areas and the intermediate areas are henceforth to receive £5 million a year less than is being paid out at present?

LORD WADE

My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement.

I might ask him whether he would agree that the proposals of the Hunt Report were very much more imaginative than those adopted by Her Majesty's Government? So far as Yorkshire is concerned—a county of which I have some knowledge—the Hunt proposals were more realistic. As regards this particular Statement, I understood the noble Lord to refer to the full range of development area training grants, and other training assistance. I would ask the noble Lord, will this assistance apply only to the intermediate areas and not to the regions as a whole of which they form part?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, thanked me for the Statement when he said that it gave him so little new information. I agree that it revolved principally around the two items to which he referred, but nevertheless the Statement was necessary. It is, if I may say so, an intermediate Statement on the intermediate areas. The noble Lord asked me a difficult question in relation to the £25 million. It just so happens that the sum does come out at £25 million. Of course it is not possible to make very precise budgeting estimates as to what new charges will fall on the Government and what savings the Government will make. These are the best estimates, but one might have said about £20 million or £25 million. I am sure the noble Lord is experienced enough in this field to know that this type of estimate cannot be very accurate.

On Lord Wade's point with regard to Yorkshire, the Government gave the most exhaustive consideration to what should be done. Although there were certain of the Hunt proposals which have not been adopted, none the less they were designed to bring about, I think. a sensible and useful switching of resources. The purpose is quite clear. It is that although the biggest resources unquestionably go to the development areas, the intermediate areas will get a drop of about one-tenth. Scotland will continue to receive £90 million out of the overall £280 million of special Government assistance. I think it must be a matter of judgment where to draw the right line.

On the training grants, I am not quite clear what the noble Lord meant. In so far as there are special provisions which are available in areas where the need is greater, these will be made available in the intermediate areas as well. This is not to suggest that the Government training programmes in other areas will not continue. I shall be very happy to get a little more information, if there is any, and will either let the noble Lord have the answer in reply to a Question or write to him.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? Are we to understand from what he said that North Staffordshire is excluded, including Stoke-on-Trent, despite the Hunt Committee's recommendation in the opposite sense? Secondly, as regards the advice the National Coal Board can give on reclamation of derelict land, is the noble Lord aware that the N.C.B. itself has had great difficulty in discovering what to do with colliery waste? In the West Riding this is a mounting problem. A site for the disposal of ash from the Drax power station has yet to be discovered Are consultations proceeding to enable the relevant local authorities to tackle this problem, and to examine the possibility of putting the spoil into Spurn Bight, in the Humber, or something of that sort?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I know that I have to be most careful in dealing with the noble Earl, who, judging by the high calibre of the letters he writes to me, is an expert on economic geography. If I am unable to answer him he will get another long letter from me—and I hope that he has had one to-day.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE

I thank the noble Lord.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Earl is quite right. North Staffordshire is not included in the intermediate areas; nor for that matter are certain other areas that were recommended, whereas others have been brought in. This is not a reflection on the Hunt Committee. They did a thorough study, and the Government had to look at it and come to conclusions. For instance, they took some decisions in the interest of continuity and to avoid uncertainty. Continuity is tremendously important; this is one of the reasons why the Government did not de-schedule Merseyside.

On the particular point about reclamation, I think I am right in saying that North Staffordshire will benefit by the 75 per cent. capital grant. It is one of the wider areas. If necessary, I shall be happy to let the noble Earl see the maps on this. On the other questions, about the technical side of reclamation. I can only say that I am sure the officials and my right honourable friend will be most interested in what the noble Earl has said.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, if the noble Lord the Leader of the House will look at Hansard to-morrow he will find that I did not thank him for the Statement; I thanked him for repeating somebody else's Statement. Having been a Treasury Minister, I find it difficult to accept his intimation that these figures are a bit vague. My experience is that the Treasury are most careful before giving any figures to Ministers. In the Statement on April 24 it was said: When these measures are in full operation their cost will amount to nearly £20 million a year". The noble Lord in his Statement has given further information about the measures, but has not expanded them. He says that this cost is to be met by withdrawing the S.E.T. premium. On page 233 of the Hunt Report it is stated that: the value of this premium … is about £25 million a year". Is it possible to draw any conclusion from the conjunction of these two Statements other than that the Government's announcement to-day, which as I know is intended to be accepted as a forward-looking one, will in fact mean that the less prosperous parts of our country are to have £5 million a year less?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, that does not necessarily follow. The noble Lord, with his Treasury experience, will appreciate that whereas the £25 million is based on actual fact and is therefore an accurate figure, the other figures of what the expenditure will be can only be an estimate. This is essentially, if it is anything, a switch of resources. However, I had better not go too deeply into resources. This figure of £20 million is what it is believed will accrue through these new schemes to the intermediate areas, but it may be more. Once one has decided to raise the money in this way, I do not quite see how less than the full £25 million could be taken. The Government are not seeking in any way to deceive, and clearly could not have deceived the noble Lord. They have stated the figures as they have, but there is certainly no intention to deprive the areas concerned or, so to speak, to make a profit out of this operation. I do not know what, in the end, the cost will he. There are a number of figures which are quite unquantifiable in the precise terms which the noble Lord would wish them to be. But perhaps to save time I will grant that he has made a point.