HC Deb 21 June 1968 vol 766 cc1567-80

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

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes

(Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): The issue I bring before the House raises a number of deep points of principle. The rights of individual citizens, the physical condition of their environment, their peace of mind—these are matters I do not take lightly but, as I hope to show, they are rights that can very easily be trampled on by an insensitive bureaucracy.

On the northerly fringe of my constituency there are very many pleasant houses on a site which up to 20 years ago had an open aspect in a semi-rural atmosphere. When local residents acquired these properties, the land, in the main, formed part of what was known as Lord Armstrong's Estate. It was expressly stated in the deeds that the buyers of the land were not to carry on any business or industrial activity. In other words, this was an open, private, pleasant, secluded residential area.

Such is the case no longer, for on this vast and extensive site, in front of the many houses to which I have referred, there exists today what is, I think, the largest clerical campus in the whole world and one of the world's largest public administration departments. It is the headquarters of the massive Ministry of Social Security, with upwards of 10,000 employees and with many more to come.

I am all in favour of the devolution of Government Departments from London, and the region in question has greatly benefited from the large number of job opportunities that have been provided. But whenever there is development of this kind there is always another side to the coin, and the House could, I think, usefully pause for a moment to look at some of the conditions which my constituents have had to tolerate in the last few years. I will give some examples from the constant stream of complaints I have received.

First of all—and a large number of the Ministry's employees have vehicles —there has been a vast increase in the amount of vehicular traffic, and the access roads to the Ministry building are inadequate, particularly at peak periods. Masses of cars clog up the side streets running round the site, and I know—because I know the people involved—that residents find that they cannot get their cars in or, if they are in, cannot get them out. Some of the people say that they often feel like prisoners in their own homes.

The Ministry of Social Security has a practice in its building plans and procedures of pushing all its less aesthetic, less pleasant buildings to the back of its site. The back of the site is, of course, the front of my constituents' houses. Or the Ministry puts these buildings to the south of its site, which also fronts my constituents' houses.

It is there that the Ministry planned a collecting centre for waste paper, so that a fair amount of that waste paper lands in my constituents' gardens. Then we get the mushrooming in front of these houses of such things as a boiler house, an engineering and maintenance workshop, an employees' toilet, a car park, and even a 120-foot chimney. This last object has not yet been built, because the first thing I did on entering the House in 1964 was to persuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who was at that time the Minister of Public Building and Works, to move the chimney. He said that it would have to be built, eventually, but not on such an obstrusive site and I am grateful for his co-operation, although I can readily see that it is very difficult to hide a 120-foot chimney.

In any case, there is still left the problem of the very noisy boiler house with its belching smoke working often very late during the night and not yet at full capacity and therefore not at its full blast and full pitch of noise. Incidentally, that was a piece of planning about which local residents were never consulted.

That is not the end of the story. There is a human element. It is a small thing, but in the long run it may lead to a great deal. Young employees play noisy ball games on some waste ground in front of these houses, which happen to contain a number of people who work night shifts and who complain of the frequency with which balls are kicked into gardens and, worse than that, the abusive language which they receive when they complain. There is also the constant noise of the refuse collecting centre. Much land has been ashphalted, and this has led to impeded drainage of the site with regular flooding of the gardens of some of my constituents. There is machinery which sometimes works throughout the night; there are sewers which have been blocked. All these are developments of a character never intended for this site.

Then there are Ministry employees returning from nearby public houses who have indulged in unseemly and abusive behaviour, late night revellers after dances and parties held at the Ministry who have caused disturbances, including flinging bottles and cans into adjacent gardens and urinating against local resi- dents' gates and walls. I only recently received a complaint of residents finding such objects as ladies' underwear and discarded contraceptives in their gardens.

I am fully aware that we cannot expect perfect behaviour from anybody and I am fully aware that in a vast campus of thousands of employees, including many young people, there will be people who misbehave, but it is also understandable that in this situation my constituents should react strongly against any further encroachment on their peace of mind.

As my file has been full for many years with complaints from local residents, which were passed on to the local officials responsible for the site, who have been unable to deal with most of them, it is not surprising that a month ago some of the local residents decided that enough is enough, and they took a firm stand on a simple and straightforward issue. They noticed that foundations were being laid immediately in front of their houses for what they found on inquiry to be an engineering and maintenance workshop. The people in Corchester Walk and Ainthorpe Gardens were fortunate to have among them a Mr. Alfred Hobson who has made a study of the administrative law. He knew, and when he consulted me had it confirmed, that, under Circular 100/50, the Ministry of Public Building and Works building this workshop for the Ministry of Social Security should have consulted the local planning authority. He found out that the local planning authority had not seen the plans for this development and had not been consulted.

Meanwhile, I had taken up this matter with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the Minister, and he had written to me to say that the building must proceed and that the local planning authority had approved the plans. But a short while later one of his staff telephoned me in Newcastle to say that that was not correct. I must make it clear before going any further than that the Minister apologised profusely for this error, and I unreservedly accepted his apology in good faith. It may surprise him to know that he is one of my favourite Ministers.

I was also delighted, and not surprised, knowing my right hon. Friend, that he not only drew attention to the error, and apologised, but he stopped the building in progress. He wrote to say that the local residents would be fully consulted about the plans for this part of the site. What appalled me, and upset the local residents very considerably afterwards, was that within hours someone in his Department for which he was responsible had invoked the rarely used procedure—I think it has been used only once during my right hon. Friend's occupation of the Ministry— known as the special urgency 14-day procedure, for consultation with the local planning authorities. This meant that it was impossible for my constituents to see the plans at all before they had to attend the meeting with the local planning authority, at which they were supposed to put their case against the plans.

The plans arrived during the weekend, the residents were told about the meeting on the Wednesday. They asked to see the plans, but could not see them until the meeting took place. They were therefore unable to take professional advice, and it was a travesty of proper consultation. It was not surprising that this development was described as a bureaucratic bulldozer, treating people like dirt.

My right hon. Friend said at Question Time on Monday, quite rightly, that it was not his responsibility to consult local residents. He went on to suggest that my criticisms were based on personal ignorance of the law. We can make what suggestions we like about the qualifications of hon. Members. I would only say that for many years I had the honour of serving on one of the largest planning authorities in the country. I know planning law well enough. Circular 100 is absolutely clear. The demand for the special urgency procedure could be made only by the Department. The Circular continues quite specifically by saying: … Departments have agreed to use the special urgency procedure in as few cases as possible as it is appreciated that it is often difficult for local authorities to make their comments within a period as short as 14 days. Not only had the local authority's comments to be made within 14 days but in this case, because of the circumstances, we had to get the comments of the local residents, which the local authority then had to submit to the Minister, within 14 days. It was politically insensitive for the Minister, having apologised for one mistake, to proceed to invoke a procedure which made it impossible to have proper consultation with the local residents. The responsibility lay with the local authority, but the circumstances in which it had to report within 14 days made it impossible for my constituents to take professional advice before the meeting. This cancelled out the enormous amount of goodwill created by the Minister's intervention.

It is not surprising that my constituents complained strongly at the beginning of the meeting, at which there were representatives from the Department and which was supervised by the planning authority, about the procedure adopted, saying that they had not yet seen the plans. The Conservatives in charge of the Newcastle planning authority can lie as much as they like, but the Press was present at the meeting, and it knows perfectly well that the local residents protested strongly at the outset about the circumstances in which the meeting was held.

I have had further correspondence since the meeting, confirming that, from the representatives of the residents. I am aware that eventually, during the meeting, it was agreed that the workshop should be shifted. I am not surprised, because there had been adverse publicity against this development throughout the North of England on television and in the local and national Press. The residents had dug their feet in and this had become a Parliamentary issue. There is no one living in that part of Newcastle who does not believe that, had it not been for the toughness and vigilance of the local residents, and their Member, that workshop would not have been shifted.

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

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

Mr. Rhodes

That workshop would not have been shifted but would have been on the site today. We have not come to the end of this story because the Ministry is still trying to persuade the local residents—and whatever the city council may say they are not happy about this—to have a car park in front of their houses, as if there were not enough traffic congestion at that corner of the site already.

In the course of these discussions a number of interesting facts have emerged. I shall quote a letter from the leader of local residents, Mr. Hobson, written immediately after the meeting at which the leader of the city council said that the residents were delighted and pleased. This is from people who are "fully satisfied": During the meeting with the planning authority it was clear that there was insufficient awareness on the part of the Ministry officials that the sheer size of this site (going up to 12½ thousand employees) demanded special research and attention. Ministry officers have very little information about such items as future traffic loads and flows, the social nature of the area, for example, in the number of elderly people, the number of schools, the flow of students; student hostels, the new hospital and restrictive covenants. Ministry officials were not paying sufficient attention to the best principles of town and country planning. This is a Ministry of Social Security site. The Ministry is concerned with public welfare and this should be a show piece, a model of good planning with lawns and trees and no overcrowding. Around the whole perimeter of the site, because it backs on to all these residents' houses, it should be properly landscaped with trees and should look attractive from the back as well as from the front.

During the discussion we found that the developments which have taken place, for example, the massive block of construction alongside Hiddleston Avenue had been approved by the planning authority, but none of the people on that street had been consulted. Here was a fault on the part of the local planning authority. The local planning authority would also have been well advised to have taken a stronger line against the 14-day emergency procedure. Instead of meekly conniving at it, it should have protested against it as the residents and I did.

A permanent consultative committee is needed to consider future developments which would consist of representatives of the local residents, the city planning authority, the Ministry, councillors and the local Member of Parliament. The Press should attend its meetings. The leader of the city council has told me that privately he supports such a scheme. We have heard of the present disillusionment with politics and politicians. We have heard of remoteness of Government and distrust of bureaucracy. Sometimes these criticisms are exaggerated but we need to bring people far more into the actual processes of planning. In the case I have quoted, knowing and living so near to it—only a few hundred yards away but, thank goodness, not on the actual site,—there is an example of what is wrong with British politics and perhaps a hint or two of how at least in part they should be put right in future.

4.5 p.m.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish)

I have been a Member of the House for 22 years, and I claim to know something of its procedures and something of its values. I deny to no man my affection for the House and all that it means. I know that anyone who is elected to the House is elected by his constituents, who have a prior claim on his feelings and views. But I have learned one thing above all in those 22 years: if an hon. Member wants to do something for his constituents, the best way to approach it is to do that which is right and that which is proper in order to get for his constituents that which they ought to have, rather than to make sure that he gets a lot of publicity for himself.

I have been Minister for 10 months, and I claim to have been a very ordinary Minister, with no special attributes of glory or fame. Since I have been a Minister, however, I have let it be known to every hon. Member that I was approachable on any matter affecting my Department at any time. I have let it be known that any hon. Member who wished to see me had only to pick up the telephone and ask. Indeed, I have instructed my private office to see that the door is open for hon. Members who wish to see me about anything which concerns my Department.

My first complaint—because my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) seemed to be complaining throughout his speech—is that until I received his letter I had no knowledge of this matter. He has been telling the House a great story about the Ministry of Social Security's building and all the problems associated with it. But at no time during the past 10 months has he picked up a telephone and endeavoured to come to see me about it, to discuss the present and the future. There is, of course, not much that I could have done about the past.

Having been a Member for 22 years, I find it very sad indeed that this should happen when a great Department such as my own, which is an honourable Department, makes a genuine mistake. I concede straight away that we made a mistake in this case. My people at local level were under the impression, quite honestly and sincerely, in building this workshop on this site that headquarters had received local planning approval. In fact, they had not. They started to build the workshop on this site. The moment my attention was called to the situation, I immediately ordered the building to stop, forthwith. I then used what my hon. Friend describes as the 14-days' procedure—that is, to have consultation with the local authority under what is called the Circular 100 procedure. I will come later to the reasons, in more depth.

After all, we were not building a gambling casino or a bingo hall. We were building an annexe to the Ministry of Social Security building—a building of some importance. I did not think that anybody believed that there had been any malicious intention on the part of my Department. They started to build this workshop from sheer ignorance of the situation, and the moment I heard about it, I stopped it.

We used the 14-days' procedure and, as a consequence, the local authority then consulted the local residents. I have correspondence to show—certainly these letters to the local authority show—that the local residents had no objection to the fact that this workshop was to be re-sited. I apologised to my hon. Friend by letter for what had happened. He asked Questions on the Floor of the House, and I apologised again. But apparently we still have to have an Adjournment debate, and I suppose that I am expected to apologise again. I do not know how many more times I am supposed to do it.

Before I ever heard of the story, my hon. Friend had been on television and there were stories in the Press about it. No doubt he must be the local hero. He must be the local Sir Galahad of these people, who remedies all these complaints on behalf of his constituents, putting the rest of us in rather a bad light. But I am one Minister who is not prepared to take that sort of criticism. I will simply spell out the story as I know it and as I am advised.

I will come, first, to the local residents, of whom my hon. Friend spoke. I am told that very many of them have moved into their houses since this Ministry of Social Security site was established. They knew the circumstances when they went there. It is not a case that those people living in the area suddenly had this great conurbation of buildings placed in their midst.

What building is it? It is a Department employing 10,000 people. The first Labour Government of 1945–50 took a very far-sighted decision. They decided to transfer the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, as it was then, to Newcastle. They did it and they were wise, and we have followed through the policy of transferring people to Newcastle out of London. I thought that that was the desire of the House. We have found employment for over 10,000 people in the area. I am now told that these people behave like animals, in the crudest way.

I do not necessarily accept from my hon. Friend this criticism. The behaviour of the staff of the Ministry of Social Security is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. I am advised that the senior officer in charge at the office has been prepared to meet people and discuss their problems, but it is inevitable in an area where 10,000 people are working that there should be individual complaints.

I come from dockland, and I could make many complaints about what it is and what it is not, but this is part of our life and our industry and the unpleasantness that a great deal of dockland produces for me I take for granted, because I know the other side of the coin, which is that this industry produces work for my people and trade for Britain.

My hon. Friend has made statements that the Press would like to print in thick black letters. I can imagine the banner headlines reading "Ministry of Social Security at Newcastle-on-Tyne full of Contraceptives in the Yard". One can almost see the headlines. I suppose that that is why my hon. Friend said what he did. I must tell him that the way in which he has handled this case is resented by me, because there was another way of dealing with it. He could have seen me at any time.

Mr. Rhodes

The complaints of my constituents have been conveyed to the controller at the Ministry of Social Security site. I have hinted that they have. The reason that I did not telephone further was that I realised that my right hon. Friend could not answer for the Ministry of Social Security. I do not need my right hon. Friend's help in advising me how to handle my constituents' affairs. They may take a different view of the matter from that which he does.

Mr. Mellish

I am not concerned with what my hon. Friend thinks about me; I never have been. I am telling him what I think about him. I am taking this opportunity of an Adjournment debate to do so. That is the difference between my hon. Friend and myself. I claim the right to speak in defence of my Department, and my hon. Friend's insinuation, that something has been going on during the last 10 months for which I accept responsibility. I am saying that my hon. Friend could have picked up the telephone and called me within an hour. I ask him the simple question: why did not he do it?

Mr. Rhodes

I can answer that question. For the last 10 months, during which time my right hon. Friend has been responsible for this Department, I have received only one complaint about his Department. That is the matter in respect of which I did not pick up the telephone but I wrote to my right hon. Friend. The other complaints were dealt with and referred to his Department before he took over.

Mr. Mellish

I say that my hon. Friend gave television publicity and newspaper publicity to this matter before I had anything to do with this complaint, and I again claim that if he had wanted to settle this matter promptly and efficiently and he was concerned to get his news in the Press he could have used the telephone and taken immediate steps to clear it up.

My hon. Friend referred to the attitude of the local people. I have a letter dated 10th June, 1968, signed by a Mr. Galley, the City Planning Officer for the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. He says, addressing his letter to one of my senior people at the Ministry: Dear Sir, with reference to your letter and enclosed plan dated 30th May, I would inform you that the revised siting of the maintenance depot was considered by the Development Control Work Group at a special meeting held on 31st May and it was resolved that subject to the formal views of the residents being obtained they had no objections to the revised siting. The residents have since expressed the view that they have no objections to the revised siting. I also enclose for your files a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 29th May, 1968. I have read this letter because it is a consequence of the action that I took within what is called the 14 days' procedure. The local planning authority which should have been consulted earlier and was not—I apologise for that—called the meeting as a matter of urgency at which they discussed the problems with local people. My hon. Friend conveyed the impression that these people were ignorant of plans. The truth is, as he knows well, that these people know exactly what is going on on the site, they live around it and they do not need plans; they can see it for themselves. They knew where the building would be started and, in discussing the matter, they needed only common sense. They obviously have some of that because, when the meeting was held and the re-siting was suggested, there were no difficulties and agreement has already been reached.

The other point I want to deal with is the matter of parking. I am advised that parking space will be provided here for 1,400 cars. We are also trying to get another site to ensure that those who work here—and remember, 10,000 people are working here—are given parking space. We are doing the best we can to ensure that these people will not be a nuisance with their cars to those who live in the immediate vicinity. I tell my hon. Friend that it is not only in Newcastle that there is a problem, it is the problem of cars. Everyone who lives in London knows that there is hardly a street in London which is not lined by other people's cars. It is the motorists who are menaces to all of us, and we are menaces ourselves because we are all motorists. To make the matter that much more serious in Newcastle and to think of it as a brand new problem is something which I am not prepared to accept.

The building about which my hon. Friend has made so much is a very small one. It will cost a little over £20,000. It is a workshop and depot, and the site is needed for a later stage of redevelopment by the Ministry of Social Security.

The way in which the hon. Member has stated this case certainly does not bring out the best in me, as he can see from what he has heard today. It is a matter that could have been dealt with in the way I have suggested. At the end of it he has achieved the solution which he desires; I am sure that is right, he gets all the things he wants. He gets not only the satisfaction which he has a right to expect as the representative of his constituents, he also gets the full blast of publicity.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Four o'clock.