HC Deb 16 January 1974 vol 867 cc521-2
9. Mr. Molloy

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy regarding granting permission for the location of warehouses in the Greater London area.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre)

The primary responsibility for dealing with planning applications for warehouses rests with the local planning authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend decides only those cases which come to him on appeal or which he calls in because they raise issues of more than local importance. Each case is decided on its merits having regard to the initial development plan for Greater London and other material considerations.

Mr. Molloy

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent London constituencies have been much concerned over the past few years at the exodus of industry from Greater London? Is he further aware that the practice is creeping in of the pulling down of industrial buildings which once employed thousands of people and for men and women to be thrown out of work? Warehouses, which employ very few people, are erected in place of the industrial buildings and this causes congestion of roads. If this practice is not arrested, the problem will become serious. Can examination be made of an alternative policy?

Mr. Eyre

The control of industrial development is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I remind the House that the Greater London Development Plan which is before my right hon. and learned Friend includes a statement of policy on industrial and commercial employment. Complex considerations are involved. The draft modifications which the Government are minded to make to the plan following consideration of the report of the panel of inquiry are still being compiled.

Mr. Tebbit

Will my hon. Friend discover from the Greater London Council whether its chief complaint is that there are too many jobs in London with a consequent difficulty in filling them, or too few jobs? If it is the former, we need not be worried about the loss of jobs and the substitution of an activity that requires fewer hands to do the work. The GLC seems to want to have it both ways all the time in whatever manner will cause needless embarrassment to the Government.

Mr. Eyre

I cannot answer for the GLC, but in recent days we have been considering the housing measures we can bring forward to assist the people who are working in the London area.

Forward to