Unemployment: South-East Hampshire (Hansard, 20 July 1981)

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, all the facilities of the Manpower Services Commission will be available to help those workers who lose their jobs as a result of the defence review and who need help in finding new jobs or training for fresh employment. It is the Government's policy to create the conditions in which firms can be helped to become more competitive, and so create the new jobs needed.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply and put two supplementary questions to him? First, will the Minister bear in mind that 4 the Royal Navy employs 13,000 people in the dockyard and surrounding shore establishments, and that if there was a run-down as proposed over three years it would wreck the local economy and cost the Government a great deal of money in redundancy pay, unemployment pay, social security payments and lost taxes? Would it not save the Government a great deal of money and enable them to get better value for their money to have a longer period of run-down so as to allow other industries time to establish themselves and take up the spare labour? Secondly, is the Minister aware that the Royal Navy occupies all the prime industrial land in the City of Portsmouth, and that in return it has given substantial employment? It is inconceivable—

§ Lord Jacques
Is the Minister aware that it is inconceivable that the Royal Navy should continue to occupy the whole of this land and offer little employment? What action is being taken to ensure that as much land as possible is made available as quickly as possible, and that it is used to attract alternative industries?

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, if I could take the second supplementary question first, the Government are well aware of the concern of parties, including the local authority, to see that any land held by the Royal Navy or the Ministry of Defence which becomes surplus to their requirements should be released as soon as possible for industrial development. This particular matter is being very urgently considered by the Government and others. So far as the first supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is concerned, as he and the House will be aware—and we shall be hearing in a very few minutes—there has been a radical review of the defence policy of the United Kingdom and indeed the Royal Navy has played some part in that.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if corrective action is not taken in and around the City of Portsmouth, the unemployment rate there within three years will go to something like 16 per cent.? Arising out of my noble friend's question, is the noble Lord aware that there is today, and has been for some years, some 60 acres of land owned by the Ministry of Defence outside the dockyard area which is not being used for anything at all? Will he use his best endeavours with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to get this released? Is the noble Lord aware that the cessation of the dockyard training scheme will mean that 200 apprenticeships that were to begin before the end of the year will now be cancelled? Is he also aware that the apprenticeship training scheme, which trains some 600 apprentices annually, will also have to be closed down? This at a time when industry needs more training seems to be something that ought to be corrected forthwith.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, regarding the second supplementary question on land, if the land is not covered by the Royal Navy or indeed is not part of the Ministry 5 of Defence land, to which I have already referred, then I shall make inquiries and let the noble Lord know. I answered one supplementary question to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on land and I hope that covered the second question that the noble Lord asked. So far as corrective action on the economy is concerned, a special working group with local authorities was set up with the Ministry of Defence and other interested departments to see what can be done about the Portsmouth travel-to-work area, for further job prospects. The apprenticeship training scheme within the dockyard will be continued for the existing apprentices.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, is there not something to be said for the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Jacques, instead of a final shutdown to phase the closing down? After all is said and done, even the debate today will not be the final word on defence.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I think that the House will agree and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will agree that the so-called run-down—which is not closing Portsmouth altogether; there will still be approximately 1,500 workers in the dockyard after the entire review has taken place—will take at least three years. This we understand—and we hope—will give reasonable time to see what further opportunities can be made available for the workers who lose their jobs.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether there is any system of arbitration to decide whether land should be released from these various bodies? They take the decision. All over the country one sees land that could have been released long ago still held by the railways, the dockyards, the Army, the Navy and so forth, because they make the decisions.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I am not entirely sure which bodies the noble Lord believes take the decision. Ministry of Defence land which is surplus to requirements is something I have already covered in two answers. I confirm that, if there is any surplus land, the Government will make sure that the local authorities are able to take what action they wish.

§ Lord Murton of Lindisfarne
My Lords, may I ask a closely-related question of my noble friend the Minister? Has he seen the report in another place by an honourable Member that in his calculation at least 10 per cent. of all civilians employed in that part of Hampshire are in defence or in defence-related industries?

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I have to admit that I have not seen the precise information to which my noble friend refers, but I will acquaint myself with it.

Lord Elywn-Jones
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he would answer the question put by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie? If there is a refusal by a defence authority to release land which, on the face of it, looks as if it is readily available for release, is there any procedure for those who think it ought to be released to appeal to anybody, write to anybody or to bring pressure to bear upon anybody?

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, the one thing I have always learnt, and I think the whole House will have learned, when dealing with lawyers and particularly the noble and learned Lord, is never to deal with hypotheses. If there is land which is surplus to requirements for the Ministry of Defence, then indeed it is entirely up to local authorities or any other interested parties who may wish to acquire that land to take the normal and traditional steps. If the noble Lord has any further questions, perhaps I could write to him.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, surely it is not suggested that three years will be sufficient to get new industries to re-employ about 10,000 people in the present circumstances. May I suggest—

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, may I suggest that is absurd? In the circumstances it would take much longer.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, the particular point raised by the noble Lord was the run-down in the change in defence strategy; that is three years. The Government would not—nor, I think, would anyone else—suggest that three years is entirely sufficient. Indeed there is no period that would be sufficient.

§ Lord Jacques
My Lords, in that case—

§ The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames)
My Lords, I do suggest that we move on to the next Question. The noble Lord has managed to ask quite a number of supplementaries.