§ Motion made, Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]
§ 11.13 p.m.
§ Mr. David Reed (Sedgefield)In seeking this debate on the industrial and commercial future of Newton Ayclifle New Town, my sole intention is to draw attention to certain problems in the town. I do not intend to imply any criticism of any organisations which have the varying degrees of responsibility for different problems. It is the number of those agencies which makes it difficult to apportion blame. This multiplicity has contributed to the uncertainty and unrest in the town.
Few parts of Britain can be so well cared for with so many organisations looking after different aspects of the community. For a town of 25,000, there are two rural district councils, one urban district council, one county council, one parish council, not to mention the Development Corporation and the English Industrial Estates Corporation. There are far too many cooks in the Newton Aycliffe broth. One would have to be a constitutional expert simply to understand who does what in local government. In the long term, this crazy situation must be resolved, and this can only be done by some form of democratically-elected local government directly responsible to the residents.
I am glad to say that in the meantime the Development Corporation has recognised the need for more information about the division of responsibilities and is doing something to get more information across to the residents. This is, at least for the time being, a step in the right direction.
My concern is for the situation which exists in the town now, whoever is responsible for it. It is the failure to achieve the targets which were laid down in the master plan which particularly concerns me, for this failure has caused hardship to my constituents.
This failure can be closely tied to one major cause, and that is the slow progress on the industrial estate. Indeed, the whole purpose of building Newton Aycliffe was connected with its industrial 539 potential. The master plan report, which was approved by the then Government in 1967, said:
It should be clearly understood that the raison d'être of Aycliffe New Town was the recognition of the growth potential of the Aycliffe Industrial Estate, and consequently the rapid growth of the New Town continues to be linked to the expansion of industry within the Darlington/Aycliffe growth point.I am convinced that there is still tremendous potential for this industrial estate. However, in the meantime, growth has simply not been fast enough. During the six years 1961 to 1966 the creation of new employment went quite smoothly, with the number of jobs almost doubling, from 4,500 to 9,000. But the following six years were a different story, and by March of this year the net increase over the 1966 figure was only 343. Between 1970 and 1971 the figure actually fell by 742 jobs, though special factors were involved.The fact remains that for almost six years the Aycliffe industrial estate has remained virtually stagnant, and it is already way behind the proposals in the master plan. The plan envisaged that by 1974 the working population in the new town would be 19,500, 15,000 of them on the industrial estate. It is an indication of the slow progress that in 1971, with less than four years to go to the target date, the industrial estate is 6,000 jobs behind its eventual target.
Apart from the long-term implications of the slow progress in industrial terms, it is the spin-off effect of this on my constituents who are living in the town that is particularly worrying, for the slow progress on the industrial front has meant slow progress in other directions. Although this has been somewhat confused by the two revisions of the population target—these have increased the target population from 10,000 to 45,000—some indication of the slowness can be gained by a comparison of the master plan targets with what has actually been achieved.
Consider, first, population. The year for which the latest figures are available is 1969–70. The target for that year was 26,122 people living in the new town. The Development Corporation's estimate of the actual population was 22,495. It can be seen, therefore, that on population 540 alone the new town is 20 per cent. behind its target figures.
In housing the trend is similar. The target for 1969–70 was 7,402 houses. In fact, the achievement was 5,920 or 20 per cent. in arrears. The Development Corporation is now building only 300 houses, perhaps less, every year, though it is in a position, if the demand warranted, to double, treble or even quadruple that figure.
Another indicator of progress is the shopping facilities that have been provided. They are a valuable indicator because they reflect the confidence that outside bodies, such as property developers and shop owners, place in the future of the Newton Aycliffe New Town.
Again, there is slight confusion because the town centre plan has had to be revised to take account of the change in population targets. But the pace of development in respect of shopping has still been far too slow. The master plan target for 1974 was for 315,000 square feet of shopping space. By December of last year there was in existence only 115,600 square feet of shopping space. This means that just over one third of the potential has been realised with less than four years to go to the target date.
This sort of slowness has also been illustrated in other respects—in the social, recreational and other facilities which are also lagging behind. I am glad to say that the local authorities and the Development Corporation are taking some steps to cope with the demand which already exists, and to a certain extent I am pleased to see that they are making progress in anticipation of future demand. But the overall effect of this slow growth has been a depressing influence on my constituents. That is what really concerns me at present.
In Newton Aycliffe there is very little sense of community spirit or civic pride in the town. This is largely because there is not very much that the residents can be proud of at present. One resident even described the place to me as a "transit camp" to which people came simply because rented accommodation was available there; they had little desire to put down roots in the town or to make their future homes and careers there; even if they had those desires there was little chance to do so because there 541 was not much private housing available for sale.
The present situation is that Newton Aycliffe needs a stimulus. Without a shot in the arm of some kind, there is little chance of the £16 million of taxpayers' money which has already been invested there achieving its aim of creating what I should hope would be a real community.
Since it is the industrial estate which is the root cause of the problem, it is to that that I draw the Minister's attention. Paradoxically, it is the very success of the Labour Government's regional policies which contributed to the slow growth in Newton Aycliffe, because the creation of special development areas in nearby places has meant that they were able to offer a far better deal to new industries. This has had the effect of pulling industry away from Newton Aycliffe, even some existing industry and certainly some of the industry new to the North-East region as a whole.
On unemployment figures alone, I appreciate that Newton Aycliffe does not merit special development area status at present. But it is worth bearing in mind that the industrial estate there serves a much wider area. I have had one estimate that over half the current working population on the industrial estate travels in from other places. I suggest that the unemployment figures themselves are not in this case the major criteria, and that Newton Aycliffe's very important rôle, in the sub-region which it serves, in itself demands that the town be given special development area status.
I ask the Minister whether he can confer with his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry about the possibility of transferring control of the industrial estate from the English Industrial Estates Corporation to Aycliffe Development Corporation. Again this is not meant as a criticism of the work that the Estates Corporation has done in the past. I suggest, however, that the Estates Corporation has had to have other priorities—particularly the estates which it looks after in special development areas. This is understandable and I accept it. But it is a bad planning principle for the industrial and urban development of any new town to be in separate hands when it is unnecessary for it to be so. I think this applies even 542 when the two organisations in Newton Aycliffe have built up a useful working relationship in day-to-day terms.
Criticism has, however, been forthcoming of the Estates Corporation in two fields: one is its unwillingness to offer freehold sites to industry, because many industrialists look for the freehold of the site they are to develop; the other is the scale of rent it charges to tenants on the estate. The Development Corporation could and would be much more flexible in its approach to industry. I believe it would also be more vigorous in the promotion of the advantages of the industrial estate.
The birth pangs of Newton Aycliffe have lasted for over 24 years, and simply by acceding to these two requests the Government could give it the boost it now needs if it is ever to develop into a mature town and what I hope will be a sensible, straightforward working community.
§ 11.26 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of Stale for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon)I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed) on raising this matter tonight, on the interest that he has shown since the General Election in the problems of Newton Aycliffe New Town, and on the many times he has raised this matter in the House since his election.
I must confess that one of the more hopeless tasks I was given in the General Election was to campaign in Sedgefield in the hope that I might possibly succeed in securing that the hon. Member did not actually arrive in this House. Although, ideologically, I am sorry to see him here, I think we all recognise on personal grounds, that in the activities he has carried out for his constituency he has proved himself to be an exceedingly able Member. I assure him that what he has said will be carefully considered by the Government. We will bear in mind what he has said on this as on other occasions.
I am replying to this debate because new towns largely fall within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Therefore, I am concerned about the industrial and commercial future of Newton Aycliffe. I very much hope to have the opportunity of visiting the town in the not too distant future. Though 543 I have visited many of the new towns, I have not yet visited Newton Aycliffe or Peterlee. However, I have had the chance of having some short discussions with the acting chairman, Mr. Appleton, about the problems of Newton Aycliffe, and I learnt a great deal from him and will bear all this in mind.
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the problems of Newton Aycliffe, and we will study with great interest the suggestions he makes, and I will come to two particular suggestions later. Some of what he says is the responsibility of other Departments, but I will make sure that the Ministers concerned see what the hon. Member has said.
I shall give a slightly different picture from that to which the hon. Member drew attention. He spoke of the slow growth of Newton Aycliffe. But let us face the fact that a lot of good has happened there as well. The Corporation was established in 1947, and it was a purpose-built new town to provide accommodation for workers on the industrial estate there. We are now in 1971, and it is interesting to reflect that the population of Newton Aycliffe in 1947 was 60 and today it is 24,000, and it is eventually expected to rise to 45,000. During that period of time 6,000 new dwellings have been built and 9,000 jobs have been provided. Of course, there is a great deal more to do and we are only half way towards the eventual population target for the town. But a lot has been achieved. The town has had a busy past, and I believe it has an extremely busy future.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these points, because it is right that we should now review the methods we use for tackling the important tasks that confront us in Newton Aycliffe, and how they should best be accomplished. I appreciate the anomalies that the hon. Gentleman raised in regard to the industrial estate. Among English new towns Newton Aycliffe is in a unique position. The estate is outside the designated area. It is under the control of the English Industrial Estates Corporation, which is an agent for the Department of Trade and Industry. The Development Corporation builds the houses and deals with all the numerous new 544 town problems, but the estate provides jobs in industry for the inhabitants of the new town.
I will raise with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Department now primarily responsible for the functioning of the estate, the hon. Gentleman's points about the disposal of freehold sites and the scale of rents in the estate.
After the Second World War the former Royal Ordnance Factory became the site for the estate. Former Royal Ordnance factories are providing the basis for development of a number of new towns, but they are not the ideal basis for a modern industrial estate. A great deal of effort has gone into the estate. It comprises 570 acres and has 3½ million square feet of factory space. At the last count it gave employment to over 9,000 people. About £1 million has been spent on site clearance works, and some £4 million on building works. The Estates Corporation has demolished 26 miles of overhead steam pipes and equipped each factory with independent heating, as well as removing miles of redundant railway track and demolishing 730 buildings. It has had quite a formidable undertaking.
It is true that employment on the estate has not changed much in the past two years, but in the past 10 years, as the hon. Gentleman knows from an answer to a Question he asked on 17th July last year, the numbers employed have more than doubled, from 4,500 in June, 1961, to over 9,000 today. During that period employment in manufacturing industry on the estate grew at an average annual rate of 570. I believe that there has been a remarkable transformation of the estate over the years, for which credit goes to those responsible for the estate.
The hon. Gentleman would like to see the estate transferred to the new town Corporation. There are difficulties in this, but I will bear in mind what he says. Any proposals for a change would have to take account of the interests of the firms established on the estate and of their employees, the valuation of the land and buildings, and the basis for transfer. There are a number of implications for the Corporation, such as 545 whether a transfer would involve extending the designated area of the new town. All these would have to be gone into, and there would have to be many consultations.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the hon. Gentleman on 10th May, the two Secretaries of State concerned will certainly consider any representations he cares to make on the topic. I gladly repeat that assurance.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposes to hold a meeting next week of a number of interested parties, and I hope that after the meeting he will be in touch with us once again so that we may consider any suggestions he puts forward. I particularly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the single-mindedness with which a development corporation would be able to tackle these tasks; he fairly points out that if they were the responsibility of the Development Corporation it would be its single-minded task to get industry for the estate. I cannot give the exact assurance which the hon. Gentleman would like, but we shall consider any suggestions that he cares to put forward, and I hope that he will make further representations to us. If he does, we shall study them sympathetically. The situation is anomalous compared with that in any other English new town.
The second matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is the possibility of special development area status. Obviously it would be impossible to give this status everywhere. To do so would defeat the purpose for which it was created. In many ways, Aycliffe is in a happier position than many nearby authorities which have been granted the status. There are real advantages in development area status, even without the special development additions. Perhaps I might remind the House that in development areas it is possible to get free depreciation, a 40 per cent. initial allowance on the construction cost of industrial buildings, rent-free periods on new projects, building grants of up to 45 per cent., loans, removal grants, assistance for key workers, training grants, and regional employment premium.
The hon. Gentleman cannot, and, to be fair, did not, bass his suggestion that 546 Aycliffe should have special development area status on the rate of unemployment in the area. No one can pretend that the latest figures for Aycliffe are wholly satisfactory, but I am glad to say that the unemployment rate for the Darlington-Aycliffe travel-to-work area in May, 1971, was 3.2 per cent. That is marginally below the Great Britain rate of 3.3 per cent. and well below the Northern Region rate of 5.4 per cent. The corresponding figures for Peterlee and Washington are very much higher, both over 7 per cent.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has suggested in the past that the unemployment problems of Newton Aycliffe are hidden, since the unemployment percentage rates are calculated for the Darlington-Aycliffe travel-to-work area but not for Aycliffe alone. This is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but it is a problem of definition which is very difficult to solve satisfactorily. The figures that I have given are the best available at present.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that industrial development certificates are freely available in the development areas, and in Newton Aycliffe itself, although it is a sad fact of life at the moment that there is too little mobile industry to go round when it comes to considering the problems of new and expanding towns. That is inescapable but, I hope, temporary. It is the responsibility of the regional offices of the Department for Trade and Industry to promote and steer industrialists to the assisted areas, and in the case of Aycliffe it is done by the Newcastle office.
Since August, 1968, four new advance factories totalling over 140,000 square feet have been completed. What is more, 20,000 square feet of new purpose-built building has been completed in the last two years, and another 65,000 square feet has recently been authorised. Since January, 1966, eight firms have set up at Newton Aycliffe, giving employment to more than 600 people. I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman special development area status, especially since the rate of unemployment at Newton Aycliffe is below the national average. I wish I could give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks, but I am sure he will appreciate that it would not be possible 547 in the circumstances to give special development area status to Newton Aycliffe.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of other points, not so much tonight but in past Questions and previous debates, and we are considering them. One specific matter concerns the importance that he attaches to having a sufficient number of local members on the Newton Aycliffe Corporation. Certainly we have that in mind. There are already two members with local knowledge, and, when my right hon. Friend reviews the membership of the Corporation, which he hopes to do during the course of this year, we shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
We shall also bear in mind what the hon. Member has said in the past about the rôle of local government, and I certainly note what he has said about the very large number of local authorities that are connected with the town of Newton Aycliffe. He will know, of course, that the Government have published a White Paper on the Reform of Local Government. If authorities wish to make representations to my right hon. Friend about the areas concerned, they should be made in the very near future. If the hon. Member has any such representations 548 to make, he should write to my right hon. Friend.
I am very much concerned that all the new towns in the North should be a great success. I shall do everything in my power to achieve that. I hope to complete my visits to the new towns in the near future. We are determined to make a success of new towns such as Newton Aycliffe. I am sure that all Government Departments concerned will study what the hon. Member has said. If he cares to make more representations to us in the next few weeks, as I understand he has in mind, we shall be glad to consider them. We shall be glad to consider constructive suggestions such as he has made tonight which may add to the benefit and prosperity of Newton Aycliffe and help its industrial and commercial future. His remarks will be studied with great care. His concern for the wellbeing of his constituency is much appreciated. We shall do everything we can to help Newton Aycliffe to become more prosperous and to have a happy future.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.