HC Deb 30 November 1965 vol 721 cc1384-94

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

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

My constituency includes by far the larger part of the County of West Suffolk and, like the rest of East Anglia, it is undergoing great changes. The biggest change is in its population, which is scheduled to grow by 50 per cent. within the next generation. The greatest part of this increase will come from the town expansion programme which is to bring in about 40,000 people from London. These new people, who represent a most valuable injection of human talent, are normally referred to as "overspill". I would urge the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and all Government Departments to get rid once and for all of this ugly word. It is nothing more than an insult to human beings to describe them as overspill.

The town expansion programme offers bright prospects for West Suffolk, provided that it is properly handled. But it also poses problems, not the least of which is the need for more money to lift up the standards of the entire social infrastructure of a county which is primarily agricultural. We do not have that money, because we are not a rich county. This raises questions of how Suffolk is to provide things like sports arenas and libraries. We can hardly pay for them out of local rates, but it is about specific problems that I want to speak tonight and, first, those of Bury St. Edmunds.

The question is whether expansion will improve Bury or not. So far, the town has handled its growth pattern better than most other towns. Its council has retained control, instead of handing it over to the Greater London Council. Its new housing estates have their problems, as I can testify, but, broadly speaking, I think that the Minister will agree that Bury has done well. Whether it continues to do so depends in large measure on central Government. The Minister has to decide about the borough's town map and I hope that he will ensure that there is an important place in Bury St. Edmunds for more home owners. Far too many young Families who want their own house built by a builder of their own choice are having to move out of the town to nearby villages to find a plot of land. The town is, therefore, in some danger of losing its most valuable younger citizens. They work in Bury but live and pay rates elsewhere.

My second concern is that Bury's population expansion should be matched by an adequate build-up of social amenities. There are few towns so well provided with cultural pursuits, but we need more and better recreational facilities. With the support of the county council I recently approached the Army Lands Department to inquire whether Gibraltar Barracks, the home of the East Anglian Regiment, could not be made available for civilian purposes. I am glad to say that when the regiment moves out, in 1968 or 1969, most of this extremely valuable site seems likely to be sold to the county council and the borough. It could be used for excellent purposes—for a badly needed extension of the West Suffolk College, for an indoor swimming pool and sporting arena where Bury's very good football team may be able to move from its present grounds.

I urge upon the Minister to use all his influence to see that we are not held up, for years, by Treasury parsimony over loan sanctions in the acquisition and development of this important site. Bury needs Gibraltar Barracks as an integral part of its town expansion. The sooner we get it the better.

I turn now to the other expansion towns in my constituency. I shall say little of Mildenhall except to refute those who have sought to attach to this fine little town and its able rural district council the odious label of a colour bar. Mildenhall has not and never has had a colour bar. Its council and its people seek only by wise forethought to ensure that hasty development does not cause unnecessary problems for the future.

In Newmarket, town expansion is unfortunately bedevilled by disagreements. I regret to say that local political candidates have been trying to get into the act for partisan advantage. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that this complex issue should be handled as far as possible in objective and nonpartisan terms for the benefit of all concerned.

The Minister is now studying Newmarket's proposals. I should like to have a talk with him before he makes any decisions, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance tonight that, in any plans which are approved for Newmarket's future, he will have regard to three main points. First, it is a West Suffolk town. Second, its primary business activity, racing, makes a unique and extremely valuable contribution to our national balance of payments. Third, far from wanting to destroy racing, the town council has specifically stated that expansion is to be balanced and limited.

I turn now to Haverhill, and, on behalf of the people who live there, I have some questions to ask about the medical and social facilities and the economic prospects which lie ahead. First, housing. Much of it is good in Haverhill, but some of it leaves a good deal to be desired. On the new estates, I have myself seen numerous cases of sloppy construction. In one brand new house which I visited, the new tenant found a heap of rubble, a dead mouse and a packet of half-eaten sandwiches walled in behind the splash-board in his bathroom. In other houses I have visited, Haverhill families have shown me walls which were wringing wet, doors and windows which did not fit, leaking ceilings, and back yards which were seven inches deep in water because no drains had been installed.

Many of these shortcomings may well be the result of going too fast, but, whatever be the reason, it is the people of Haverhill who have to put up with them—the tenants who have to live with built-in defects, and the officials of the Haverhill council—to whom I pay tribute, particularly to the town clerk—who are sometimes overwhelmed with complaints from people who want leaking taps, draughty windows or ill-fitting doors put right overnight.

These are the questions I want the Minister to answer as regards housing in Haverhill. Who precisely is responsible for seeing that contractors do a good job, with the taxpayers' money? To what extent do the Haverhill houses, specifically on the Clements Estate, conform to the Parker Morris standards of space and heating?

Now, the medical situation in Haverhill. It is nowhere near good enough. New people arriving in the town have virtually no choice of doctor; they must go on whichever list happens to be less full. There is no hospital, and, on the present plans, there will not be one for 15 or 20 years. I have talked to many young mothers in Haverhill who are genuinely worried about the lack of maternity facilities. What happens in many cases is that a young woman will have to walk up to a mile to the middle of the town to get a bus—which sometimes goes past her because it is full—and she then has a long and difficult journey to either Newmarket or Cambridge. When she gets there, she may well have to wait several hours for a return service. On a cold winter's day, with two or three children hanging on her arm, this can be a miserable experience. In 1965, it is not good enough.

With the support of the Haverhill town clerk, I recently went to see the regional hospital board, and the chairman told me that there had been almost no consultation with his authority over the build-up of population. It seems that an obstetric consultant will soon be making regular visits to Haverhill, and this is a start, but if we cannot have a hospital—which is something which I profoundly regret—at least let there be an extension of the local clinic, with a permanent staff nurse and a telephone operator who can get hold of a doctor right away when accidents occur. Let there also be better provision for getting patients and their relatives to the hospitals. I should like to see a regular bus for hospital visitors going from Haverhill to Newmarket and, perhaps, to Cambridge, too, on one afternoon each week.

My third point about Haverhill concerns jobs and wages. There is not enough of either. The credit squeeze may have something to do with it, but the situation at the moment is that, in a county which otherwise has a shortage of labour, Haverhill employment exchange shows about 100 men out of work. There is very little casual employment available for women and boys. There is very little overtime in many Haverhill factories, and many men in the town are travelling considerable distances to find work, after moving out there from London.

This is a disturbing picture against the background of an expansion programme in which jobs and houses are supposed to go together. I think that we should face the truth that Haverhill industry is not at the moment expanding as quickly as originally expected. I hope that the Minister will pay close attention to this, for either Haverhill must attract more industry or the rate of its population expansion may have to be slowed down. It does not help for British Railways to be closing down Haverhill station, and perhaps the Minister will say how he sees this making sense in an expanding town.

Lastly, I want to mention the need of Haverhill for more social amenities, post boxes and telephone kiosks, shops, a community centre, a better library, a bigger post office, more buses and more sports facilities. All these things take time. They also cost money. Time may well bring them. But the point I want to stress is that for those who have to wait and go without there is no comfort in being told that somewhere over the rainbow skies are blue. I hope the Minister will try to avoid the kind of answer which says that if only we wait all will be provided. Instead, I ask him to answer my specific questions, which I will sum up for his convenience.

First, as regards Haverhill, will he take care that the build up of housing and population does not run ahead of the provision of employment and social and medical amenities? We do not want to have a lopsided town. In particular, will he be wary about grandiose plans to push up population to far higher levels for which the economic foundations and resources simply do not exist.

Second, as regards Bury St. Edmunds, will he do his best to ensure that permission to redevelop Gibraltar Barracks for the community is not protractedly delayed?

Third, as regards Newmarket, will he do his utmost, as I have tried to do, to bring the conflicting parties into sensible agreement? There can be no good future for Newmarket unless racing and the urban district council agree.

Finally, with regard to West Suffolk as a whole, will he bear in mind that, while we welcome change, we want to civilise it. We accept the need for expansion. It is no less than our national duty to receive the people from London who come to the East Anglian countryside in search of new homes. We are glad to have them. But, while accepting expansion and all that goes with it, we want to preserve some of the character of our countryside and ancient towns. I am sure that the Minister would be the first to agree that the success of the expansion programme and movement of population out of London will be measured not just by the statistics of people who change their homes but the quality of life that they are enabled to live in their new environment, and that to the extent that West Suffolk can provide people not merely with homes but with a good life, our programme should be judged. I do not believe that this can succeed unless we have a balance between the growth of population and the provision of the social amenities that go with it. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to answer these points tonight.

11.44 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

I think that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has put his finger on some very important points arising out of an operation which we all accept can bring great mutual benefit to the parties involved. What is at the moment taking place in East Anglia is not just an act of good will by the East Anglians, valuable and important a contribution as that has been to the smooth working of the operation. There has also been a very valuable influx of people into the area, people with new outlooks and new ways of life. The mutual interchange of these things will, I am quite certain, in the long run lead to a livelier, more varied community. As the hon. Gentleman says, these things are not done without a certain amount of tension and difficulty but there is no doubt that in East Anglia tremendous efforts have been made by all parties in partnership to try to meet some of the difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Gibraltar Barracks. As Bury St. Edmunds is engaged in the reception of overspill, that itself is one of the grounds for giving it special attention in the matter of loan sanction. I hope that by the time the barracks are available some of the urgent and immediate economic difficulties will be over. Certainly, the reception of a rapidly growing population is one of the major factors in deciding loan sanction.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Newmarket. I must make clear the position here. My right hon. Friend has called in the planning application in connection with the Newmarket expansion and there will be an inquiry next year. I cannot, therefore, talk to the hon. Gentleman about that now. Before the inquiry, what I say would be redundant, as the inquiry is the right place for determining the facts. If I talk to him after it, both he and I may be in serious trouble with the Council on Tribunals for having had consultations which were with not before the inquiry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his best influence to see that the matters of which he talks are deployed at the inquiry so that there can be a full review of the complicated inter-relations of the problems on which my right hon. Friend will have to make his decision.

What the hon. Gentleman said about the need to phase expansion in West Suffolk is correct. There are great difficulties in rapid movement. On the other hand, it is of the essence of this sort of undertaking that movement should be rapid because the need to rehouse people is tremendous. This is the dilemma one is always faced with in these matters. Looking at the problem from the point of view of the reception areas, one sees the risk of quick movement and the danger of getting out of step. But from the point of view of the desperate urgency of finding better housing conditions for the people of London and Liverpool, for example, one cannot just judge the thing from this angle.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

But the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is necessary at least to ensure that the economic means of making a livelihood for the people moving to the reception areas are available.

Mr. MacColl

I shall come to that. This is the problem of trying to reach equilibrium between things dynamic and not static. It is not easy to see that we have equilibrium. Jobs and home are tied up together, but both move at different speeds. I have visited reception areas where the plan was that industrialists should move there, having been promised that labour would be available. But when they have got there, they have found that a hold-up in housing has delayed the availability of labour. This creates much difficulty. It is, therefore, in everyone's interest to see that jobs and homes go together. But it is not something which can be done beautifully and tidily to several decimal places of accuracy. It is a question of phasing these activities so that as far as possible we get the right result.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the houses in the area of Haverhill. That is a matter for the local authority which is responsible for housing. They are the responsible people. If the houses were built by the Greater London Council as agent, under an agency agreement, the G.L.C. would be responsible. If some of the houses were built by the district council because they would be for their own local people, the council itself would be responsible But I think that these matters, on the whole, are settled with great amicability between the G.L.C. and the local housing authority.

As far as Parkway is concerned, as far as I know, the only Parker Morris houses there are the 80 Calder industrialised-built houses. They are up to Parker Morris standards. In "Clements", as far as I know, some of the houses which are being built there are Parker Morris. My right hon. Friend wants to maintain Parker Morris housing standards, and it is the intention that all new houses should be up to those standards. I hope there will not be any difficulty about this.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the difficulties connected with hospitals and the need for better surgeries. These again are matters about which he has been questioning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and to which he has had some answer. My right hon. Friend is watching the position, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there will always be conflicting priorities in these matters. The Minister is, I am sure, well aware of the needs of the area and of the rapidly increasing population.

I should like to make it clear that we always have this problem of the conflict between the need to preserve the quality of the social services and the need to expand them quickly. That does not apply only in the case of new and expanding towns. It is a dilemma which we get everywhere. But special risk and danger attach to it because of these rapidly expanding populations.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the challenge presented to the people in the various areas. In one of his more moving speeches, which I happened to read the other day, I saw that he said these problems could not be solved in Whitehall or at County Hall; they must be settled on the ground. I agree very much with that statement.

A study group of the Central Housing Advisory Committee published a pamphlet called "The First 100 Families". This is a report with some very practical and down-to-earth advice about how to handle the problem of reception. My right hon. Friend has decided that the work of this study group needs to be carried further, and he has set up a special sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee to consider the scale of community facilities and services needed in expanding communities, and to consider the administrative and financial problems arising in town development schemes. I think the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the Clerk of the Haverhill U.D.C., to whom he referred, is one of the members of the sub-committee. His intimate and practical experience of these problems will be available to my right hon. Friend. This will be to the advantage of lie country as a whole as well as to Haverhill.

We are aware of the problem and we are consulting the people who are involved in these matters. It may, however, help the hon. Gentleman if I make it clear that the responsibility for making these arrangements lies with the local authorities concerned. That is where the provisions for the expanding towns differ from those for new towns. There is no development corporation with Government money to direct. There has to be agreement among the county council, the district council and the exporting local authority, in this case the Greater London Council. On the whole, their relations have been happy. As schools, hospitals and roads and so on are built, other authorities become involved. They have the problem of having to work together, too, and everyone realises the importance of that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

There is a distinction between the new town arrangements, when new town corporations are established, often with a great deal of money, and the arrangements for an expanded town when, broadly speaking, the local authority has to provide amenities out of its own rates. In an area such as West Suffolk, which in many respects is comparatively poor, we need to jerk up the levels of our social facili- ties. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider whether there are means by which the financial arrangements available to new towns could be injected into the arrangements for expanded towns.

Mr. MacColl

I do not want to paint too rosy a picture of the new towns. They grumble that they do not have enough money for amenities. However, there are grants for expanding towns and, for example, in matters like water and sewerage help is given to the district authority to meet the great strain of the early stages. My right hon. Friend feels that there is much in the town development legislation which is worth while and he wants it to be a success. The advantage to an authority like Bury St. Edmunds is that it is king in its own castle and there are not the tensions which can arise in the new towns with the corporations. On the other hand, when one has responsibility, there are disadvantages which one has to tackle. The maturity of the community is often increased by tackling these problems. I do not want to seem complacent, but I think that this community will gain in maturity from the very fact that, under the leadership of the hon. Gentleman, it will have to struggle with these problems and work out its own solution to many of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.