HC Deb 15 February 1946 vol 419 cc751-60

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Sparks (Acton)

The House today has been considering the problem of agriculture and the wide open spaces of our country. I want now to consider the exact and extreme opposite—the problems of the largest built-up area in the country and, in fact, in the world. London, and Greater London, have suffered very extensively from enemy action during the war, and it was realised before the war ended that steps would have to be taken to rebuild our devastated areas, and that if we were to have a properly balanced plan, study and research should be given to this question. As a result, three plans have been prepared—the City of London Plan, compiled by the City of London authorities, the County of London Plan, prepared by the London County Council, and the Greater London Plan, prepared at the instance of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Each of these plans is complementary to the other, and I want today to refer to the Greater London Plan and some of its aspects. In doing so, my remarks will be complementary to the other two plans I have mentioned.

The Greater London Plan comprises, roughly, four concentric rings situated outside the boundary of the London County Council. It is comprised of the inner urban ring, the suburban ring, the Green belt ring and, furthest away of all, the outer county ring. The area comprises 2,599 square miles, added to which are 118 square miles of inner London, making a total figure of 2,717 square miles. The population of the Greater London area, in 1938, was 6,250,000 and the population of the Central London area, was 4,062,000, making a total population of 10,312,000. That is equal to 22 per cent, of the population, of the whole country. The Greater London Plan covers, roughly, a distance of 55 miles from West to East, and 65 miles from North to South. It is a great plan and a great scheme, which presented great difficulties to those whose job it was to compile it. I cannot do better than to emphasise what Professor Abercrombie said about the extent of this Plan, of which he was the principal author: The area is so vast, the population so great, the aspects so complex and the existing conditions so determining, that no single technician could ever hope to have in his person the necessary knowledge and skill. I am not here as an expert on town planning; I have no expert knowledge of town planning matters, but I am one who is actively engaged in the work of a local authority, whose job it is to try to interpret these ideal propositions into terms of practicalities. So, in what I have to say today I want it to be understood that I am approaching the matter from that angle. The area with which we are concerned, during 1919–38, between the two wars, has experienced a very considerable degree of expansion, and I cannot do better than quote what the Plan says with regard to the industrial expansion which has taken place: In consequence of the depression in the staple trades of mining iron and steel manufacturing, shipbuilding, etc., a vast population has moved from those depressed areas in the North, and in South Wales, to take up employment in the expanding consumer and semi-luxury industries of Greater London, Which is now the country's most important manufacturing centre. The London area comprises by far the wealthiest consumer market in the country, and probably in Europe. It has an unrivalled labour pool, able to meet the requirements of almost every variety of large industrial and first-class public utility services. London's industrial expansion has continued at an ever-increasing rate—where there is work, there, sooner or later, the population will go, followed in its turn by more industry, and then by more population. The population of the Greater London area in 1919 was 4,084,000; in 1938 it was 6,261,000, an increase of 2,176,000, in other words, an increase of 50 per cent. during that period. Just over 500,000 of that increase came from persons who decanted themselves from the Central London area to the Greater London area. I would like now to refer to two important matters regarding population and industrial decentralisation. In the first place, the Plan is a very ambitious one in regard to population. It proposes the decanting of 1,250,000 persons from Central London, and parts of the Greater London area, to regions well outside the district, and that these people shall be decanted in this way: To the London County Council and the Croydon County Borough postwar schemes, 125,000.; additions to existing towns in the outer country ring, up to 40 miles from the centre, 261,000; additions to existing towns, 40 to 50 miles from the centre, 163,750; eight new satellite towns in the outer country ring, up to 40 miles from the centre, 383,250; and to be dispersed outside the Metropolitan influence, 100,000. That is a total of 1,033,000 people who are to be dispersed in those areas, of whom 618,000 will go from Central London, and 415,000 from parts of the Greater London region. Fourteen London boroughs will be concerned in decanting their populations, and in the Greater London area 22 local authorities will be so concerned. In addition, it is estimated that 214,210 persons will find homes of their own free choice within the region, making a total of 1,247,210 people to be provided for in that area.

It is proposed that these persons shall be accommodated in 353,168 houses of different types throughout the area. So we see that we have a gigantic proposal in front of us to carry out, one of the greatest we have ever known in the history of the country. We have to rehouse 1,250,000 people, and put them in other parts of the Greater London region. I am anxious to know how that will be done. Local authorities are being asked by the Minister to consider these proposals and say what they think about them. Who is to undertake this job? There are 143 planning authorities within the region. What is the responsibility of the local authorities who have to decant their populations? Is it to be their responsibility to do this job? I believe that the job is far too great and heavy for them to undertake. Apart from the question of general organisational difficulties, it will involve a colossal cost. I do not think that the local authorities themselves would be able to carry that burden

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The hon. Gentleman is now venturing on matters requiring, legislation, which cannot be discussed on the Adjournment.

Mr. Sparks

I am sorry. I did not intend to deal too fully with that matter, but to refer to it in passing. As I have said all I wanted to about it, I will try to avoid further reference to it. It is difficult in these matter to steer clear of what is out of Order, and I must be guided by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

I want to make some reference to the question of industry. It is proposed within the area of this plan that further industrial development shall be banned. Decentralisation of industry is proposed. We are anxious to know if that is to be accomplished by voluntary or compulsory methods. I want to make one or two references to the problem of local authorities who are over industrialised and to refer to that part of the plan which says this of the greatest industrial concentration in the area: The North West London concentration, by far the most important labour employing group of industry in the region, comprises Park Royal, Willesden, Acton, Wembley, Greenford, Perivale, Hendon and Edgware Road; with the exception of a few big pre–1914 firms at Willesden, and one or two in the. Edgware Road, practically all this industry is modern. My constituency comes within this great industrial concentration. I am anxious to obtain from my right hon. Friend the Minister some guidance in dealing with the problems we have to face. We have 450 factories in Acton. We are told that some of them have to be decanted from the borough. We are anxious to know whether we can do anything, whether we have any powers, and, if not, who has the power, to effect the decentralisation of industry. It also says that no new housing development shall take place within our area.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but what he is saying bears on legislation, and is out of Order.

Mr. Sparks

I will try not to transgress the Rules of Order, but I am trying to press important points that we are worried about, and I am hoping that my right hon. Friend may give us some guidance upon them. If you will permit me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will come to the more immediate problem, that is the question of housing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

My concern is not whether it is an. immediate problem but whether it involves legislation.

Mr. Sparks

I do not think so. In this case the plan provides for a long-term policy. It imposes upon us restrictions in new housing development. We cannot develop new housing in the borough, although we are expected to decant 13,480 from the area. That is a long-term policy. I come to the question of our immediate housing problem.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Even that question is one which will involve legislation, and we cannot deal with it on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Sparks

May I ask your guidance, Sir? I want to refer to our immediate housing problem in relation to this plan. I do not think that that involves any immediate legislation. What I want to say applies particularly to our problem in Acton, on which I have had some words with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The difficulty is that the Minister will be unable to reply, because as the matter involves legislation, it is out of Order.

Mr. Sparks

I do not think the point I shall now raise involves legislation. We have seen the Minister and he has made certain proposals to us. I would like to say that we have already seen the Minister and this does not involve legislation. He has made certain proposals to which I wanted to refer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I would ask the Minister whether it involves legislation.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin)

No. The subject on which my hon. Friend is about to embark will not, I understand, involve legislation.

Mr. Sparks

We were anxious to see to what extent we could combine the plan with our present immediate housing problems. I want to say in all that has happened we have the very highest regard for my right hon. Friend and we know he always acts from the very highest of motives. He takes the view that we must not develop any further new housing scheme in Acton by acquiring more land. We have a register of 3,500 people many of whom are living in very bad housing circumstances. We have gone to my right hon. Friend and asked him to show us a way out of our difficulties and he has suggested to us that we should go out of the borough and acquire land to rehouse some of our people as part of the general policy of decanting our population. It was suggested we could go to Slough. I found this in the plan in relation to Slough and perhaps my right hon. Friend may be able to give some advice on it: Industrial expansion has outstripped the provision of social facilities and the town suffers from the disadvantage of an over-rapid population increase. With the cessation of the present intensive programme of war production the town will be faced with the difficulty of a wholesale changeover to peace production; if the present labour remains there may be serious unemployment. Until its present labour supply is absorbed and a large number of new houses erected to meet the acute shortage it should not be a decanting area for London population. First of all, how can we ask our people to go to Slough, where there is prospect of serious unemployment in the immediate years to come? Secondly, there is another important point. The plan, says this in relation to Acton: In view of the prewar labour shortage in the western and north western industrial areas and of population decanting proposed from Willesden and Acton, appreciable factory decentralisation will be necessary in these boroughs, though unfortunately many of the factories here are quite modern. To decant part of the population and leave the present volume of industry would only make the labour shortage more acute and create even worse ' travel to work' conditions. Our industries in Acton are engaged in the development of the export trade. There is a shortage of labour in Acton. Therefore, if we sent people out of the borough we should be acting contrary to the provisions of the Greater London Plan. If we send them to Slough, we send them to an area where there is prospect of serious unemployment in the next few years. It seems to me that in trying to solve this problem we are chasing our tail, round and round the mulberry bush, and we are not being helped because the Minister of Works is busy granting licences for the development and extension of industry within our borough. We are over industrialised. We have too many factories.

We are anxious to know whether there is any co-ordination of policy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us there is. Is there any co-ordination between the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Works, and my right hon. Friend's Department in order that we can have some understanding that where areas are over industrialised my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works does not grant more licences for further extension and development?

In conclusion, I would say we must pay some respect to the serious housing problem which exists at the moment. Housing 'must be priority No. 1, and all I hope is that my right hon. Friend will not try too rigidly to impose the idealistic standards of the plan upon built-up areas. That may have the effect of slowing down our efforts to solve this housing problem. I think it is necessary more than ever that there should be a clear distinction between a short-term policy for the housing emergency and a long-term policy of planning embraced in the Greater London scheme. I am sorry I have taken up more time than I intended, unfortunately apparently through being out of Order, but I want in conclusion to put these points to my right hon. Friend. Can he tell us how it is intended that the provisions of this Plan shall be co-ordinated? Can he tell us the obligations of the local authorities in carrying out the proposals in the Plan? Who is to be responsible for the decentralisation of industry and population? Are we to be responsible for decanting our own population, or is some wider authority to do it? I believe that the burden is too great for our local authorities. Will the Minister also say something about an emergency short-term Plan for solving the housing problem, which is so very acute in the whole of the Greater London region?

4.21 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin)

In the few minutes that remain, it would be very difficult for me to embark on a complete account of the Greater London Plan, or to say, if in Order, exactly what the Government propose doing in that matter. Perhaps I can just say, first of all, that there is complete co-ordination between the various Departments concerned. There is an inter-Departmental Committee, which consists of representatives of all the Departments concerned with the Plan, which is studying it closely and has already arrived at a number of tentative conclusions on it. I have also set up committees under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) to endeavour to secure an agreed plan which would be generally acceptable to the 143 planning authorities in the Greater London area, and make recommendations as to the implementation of the Plan. I imagine that their recommendations as regard implementation might involve legislation. I hope the committees will report before 30th June, and I shall be happy to make a statement as soon as possible after that.

I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend's real purpose in raising this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment was to come to this House as a court of appeal against a decision which I felt compelled to make regarding the housing situation in Acton. The borough of Acton has made application for approval of a compulsory purchase order for 20 acres of open space in Acton belonging to the Goldsmiths Company for the purpose of building houses on it. The position in Acton is that there is an acute shortage of open spaces, and I felt unable to confirm the compulsory purchase order, because I felt that it would be merely accentuating the difficulties with which that borough is already faced. I felt that in a few years' time they would be coming along and endeavouring to acquire land for the purpose of creating open spaces. I felt also that this House was very jealous of open spaces in built-up areas and would not lightly be prepared to give up any of them. Therefore, I was not able to accede to the wishes of the Acton Borough Council.

Thereupon, my hon. Friend quite rightly sought to see me. We had a talk with my officers, and I promised to go into the matter further and to look into the exact amount of open spaces available in Acton. On going into the matter, I was satisfied that they were very much below what was reasonably required for their existing population. My hon. Friend was not satisfied with that, and at his instigation I saw a deputation the other day of representatives of his authority and we thrashed the matter out. Again I am quite satisfied that it would be wrong to permit this 20 acres of open space to be used for housing purposes, and I advised the deputation to seek land outside their area, in conjunction with other authorities with whom they were associated in the West Middlesex Joint Planning Committee, and I understood that they were quite willing to look into that. I was asked what land was available within a reasonable distance of Acton and I suggested Slough. Slough is a possibility because I understand there is a great shortage of labour there at the present time. However, Slough is not the only possibility. I am sure the House would not be willing that 'the housing problem should be solved at the expense of creating an even bigger problem within a very short time. My hon. Friend asks me not to be too rigid about standards. The actual standards of building are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but the location of housing is a matter for me, and I should be failing in my duty if I permitted permanent houses to be built in the wrong place.

My hon. Friend also raised the question of employment. It is true that if a substantial population left Acton—a population which is at present working in the factories there—there would be some inconvenience to those people who have to travel to and from their work. On the other hand, the Board of Trade, in conjunction with my Ministry and others, are engaged in a policy, as the hon. Member calls it, of decanting industry. There are a large number of industries in Acton and elsewhere which are willing to move out of their existing accommodation because there is not sufficient room for expansion, or because the facilities for their workers are not satisfactory. There is a long list of industrialists who are willing to go to places within 50 miles of London and who would thus provide work for the people supplied with accommodation outside. Moreover, there are a number of factories which have been blitzed and which are quite willing to rebuild in places within 40 or 50 miles of London. My Ministry, in conjunction with the Board of Trade and others, is engaged at the present time in preparing proper plans for ensuring that industries go to such places as will harmonise with the development of housing accommodation.

For instance, we are already engaged in acquiring land for one satellite town which will house something like 40,000 people, and which will provide adequate work for that population. Other satellite towns are in prospect where housing, industry, community life, amenities, and so on, will be made available. I am sure that is the right policy. We cannot allow London to grow any bigger, and nobody suggests that London is not far too big already. Every step must be taken to reduce its size, and that can only be done by housing accommodation being provided outside the area. The using up of open spaces inside built-up areas would only accentuate the problem which, I am sure, is the last thing my hon. Friend wants to do. Moreover, it is no solution to his problem, because, when he has built on these 20 acres of land, he will still have to go outside. He cannot prevent that difficulty. I suggest that he should take a broader view and realise that this is not merely a problem for Acton, but is a London problem. He should persuade his authority to act in the spirit of the Greater London Plan and, if he does that, I am convinced he will give greater satisfaction to the people whom he represents, and will have the satisfaction of knowing he is not creating a problem for those coming after him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Four o'Clock.