§ Mr Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) why Kenilworth has now been excluded from the proposed Coventry travel-to-work area; and why Hinckley has been added;
(2) how the travel-to-work patterns compare between Rugby and the existing Coventry travel-to-work area and between Rugby and those parts of Northamptonshire which it is proposed should be in the Rugby travel-to-work area;
(3) how many Kenilworth people travel to work in (a) Coventry and (b) other destinations in the West Midlands metropolitan area.
476W
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyThe methods used to arrive at definitions of the new travel-to-work areas are described in detail in Occasional Supplement No. 3 published with the September edition ofEmployment Gazette; a copy of which is in the Library.
Estimates based on 1981 census of population data on travel to work, adjusted to allow for potential travel patterns of the unemployed as used in this Department's review of travel-to-work areas, show 2,700 people travelling from Kenilworth to work in the district of Coventry and 950 travelling to work elsewhere in the West Midlands metropolitan country area.
The same source shows 1,200 people travelling from those wards of the district of Rugby which are included in the Rugby and Daventry travel-to-work area to work in those parts of Northamptonshire which are included in the same area; and 1,400 people travelling in the reverse direction. It further showed 2,750 people travelling from those wards of Rugby to the previous travel-to-work area of Coventry with 1,150 people travelling in the reverse direction.
§ Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth on 30 July, Official Report, column 371, about the Coventry travel-to-work area, he will summarise the replies received from the four local authorities in Warwickshire; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth on 30 July, Official Report, column 371, he can now say how many critical representations he has received about travel-to-work areas in general and how many about Warwickshire in particular.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyAs my hon. Friend said in his reply on 1 August 1984 we received some 180 comments on our draft proposals, including four from the Warwickshire area. These four questioned the linking of Coventry and Hinckley in one travel-to-work area.
Since the end of the consultation period numerous further letters have been received from hon. Members and local authorities. In all, Ministers have responded in writing to over 100 representations, and over 60 letters have been sent by officials in his Department to local authorities. In addition, the regional manpower intelligence units of the Manpower Services Commission have responded to many local representations. As my hon. Friend said in his previous reply, where criticism was expressed, this was in a constructive manner.
§ Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment why the field analysis used in defining the Coventry travel-to-work area has not been made available to the Warwickshire county council.
§ Mr. Peter BottomleyAn official in this Department wrote to Mr. L. W. Rendell of Warwickshire county council on 7 August giving details of the reasons why Coventry and Hinckley were linked in the same travel to work area. No response to this letter has been received, nor am I aware of any outstanding request for information from the council. If any is received, it will be dealt with promptly.
477WThe final definitions of the TTWAs and a detailed account of the methodology employed in the review were published in the supplement to the September Employment Gazette, a copy of which is in the Library.