HC Deb 05 August 1976 vol 916 cc2133-43
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on Docklands redevelopment.

The Docklands Joint Committee approved its strategic plan for the redevelopment of the London Docklands on 19th July. This large area in the heart of London has been losing population and employment for a number of years. As everyone recognises, too much of the area presents a sorry spectacle of abandonment, inactivity and decay. Everyone recognises the need to bring new life to the area.

I pay a very warm tribute to the five constituent authorities and the GLC which have come together in the Docklands Joint Committee, resolved their natural differences of priority and objectives, and devised a scheme for the regeneration of the area. Their strategy defines both longterm objectives over the next 20 years or so and a phased programme of redevelopment.

Basic to the whole strategy is the acquisition and assembly of land essential for redevelopment. The community land scheme which Parliament has enacted in the last year has radically improved the ability of local authorities to tackle this task at reasonable cost. Already substantial areas of land are being developed or have been approved for housing and industrial purposes. This includes a major proposal for a merchandise mart in the Surrey Docks, the start of an extensive land drainage scheme at Beckton, and agreed proposals for the redevelopment of a substantial area of London docks.

The Docklands Joint Committee has applied to me for a joint land board to be set up under the Community Land Act; and the PLA, in consultation with my Department, has been giving urgent con- sideration to sustaining its operations in the up-river docks.

The strategy's major proposals are in the fields of housing, jobs and transport. Its proposals for housing development and rehabilitation will help to ease the serious deficiencies in East London and more widely. I welcome the start which the housing authorities have already made with house building in the Docklands area, and their readiness to consider new forms of tenure. All the Docklands boroughs are in areas of severe housing need, and I have made clear that we shall use the controls on local authority house building programmes to give priority to areas of stress where housing needs are urgent.

The strategy is right to point up the special employment problems faced by the Docklands boroughs, though the specific employment objectives in the strategic plan appear to be a bit ambitious in some respects. The strategy realistically draws attention to the part which local authorities can play in slowing down the decline of industrial employment and in encouraging existing employers to remain in the area.

The Government intend to help employment in three ways. First, positive steps are being taken by the Manpower Services Commission to expand retraining facilities in the area. Secondly, the Government accept that there must be some relaxation of the present statutory restriction on the advertising of London's commercial and industrial advantages by local authorities in respect of Docklands and some other areas in London which are experiencing particularly serious employment problems. Thirdly, without putting it in competition with the assisted areas, the Government intend that for industrial development certificate purposes the designated Docklands area should, wherever possible, have the same priority as the new and expanded towns in South-Eastern England.

I have not yet completed my consideration of the important transport infrastructure proposals. Major projects such as the River Line or the larger road developments are expensive, and, of course, we have to contain expenditure within the resources available. Relatively inexpensive but valuable improvements to passenger services by bus and rail, to the local road network and to freight facilities are given high priority in the Docklands strategy. It is for the GLC to decide how these can best be realised within the limits of its overall transport expenditure.

The local authorities, the people in the area and the Government have all rejected the idea of a new town corporation to carry out the development of Docklands. This is a job for the local authorities, and current arrangements already ensure that local authority expenditure on housing, transport and other services is supported, on average as to about two-thirds, by the Exchequer. Where specific grants are applicable—for instance, for some derelict land clearance projects—I am ready to consider proposals from the local authorities; and we have already approved proposals to acquire some 220 acres of land in the present financial year under the community land scheme.

As the House knows, the Government are already examining the problem of urban areas which need regeneration on a large scale. We shall be studying the allocation of Exchequer grants for current expenditure in this context. Moreover, some degree of discrimination needs to be considered in the distribution of local authority capital borrowing, with the pressing needs of such areas as Dock-lands having a particular claim to priority. We must all acknowledge present financial stringencies and the fact that any shift of resources must be offset against expenditure in other areas. But the Government recognise the need to revive the Docklands area.

The strategy will provide a new sense of direction and purpose, a new starting point. We cannot accept continuing decay and decline so near the heart of our great capital city. The Government stand by the commitment they made last year, and I gladly endorse it. Within the limits of the resources at our disposal, we shall help the redevelopment of Docklands to go forward, and with all speed.

Mr. Raison

The Opposition fully accept that Docklands must not rot, and the problem presents a great challenge to us all, but will the Secretary of State recognise that his statement gives us very little practical encouragement and contains few practical details? Is there any resource commitment by the central Government to the redevelopment of Dock-lands? It is clear that there is no commitment to the important Fleet Line scheme, but will the community land proposals have any impact on public expenditure in the next few years? If land is to be bought, presumably that will come out of public funds. What is the position in that respect?

Is the Secretary of State convinced that the present joint committee is capable of the single-mindedness, drive and expertise needed for this enormous job? Further, is he convinced that the industrial attractions which he has presented will be strong enough? Does the right hon. Gentleman fully accept the need for mixed tenure in these areas, and can he give us any idea of the time scale for the redevelopment scheme?

Mr. Shore

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a battery of questions, but I shall do my best to answer them as quickly as I can. I do not believe that London and the country generally will accept his slightly depressing view of my statement. I think that it will be seen as giving positive encouragement to the Docklands area. It is the first time encouragement has been given in the House.

On the question of resource commitment, I advise the hon. Gentleman to read again what was in my statement, in which I said what was available in terms of the RSG, TSG and housing subsidies, which cover on average 66⅔ per cent. of all expenditures under these main programmes. I indicated where additional grants would be considered which were relevant to Docklands' needs.

Nobody can be certain about the strength of the industrial incentives, but one of the main recommendations in the GLC and boroughs' joint report on Docklands, the hon. Gentlemtn will recall, was precisely that Docklands should be given the same status in terms of IDCs as new and expanding towns in the South-East. I am glad to say that we have been able to implement that recommendation.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me whether I thought that the Docklands Joint Committee was strong enough to carry out the development, which will be huge. I believe that this development of Docklands must remain under democratic control. That is why I am in favour of the strategic control of the area remaining under the Joint Committee which represents the five boroughs and the GLC, but it is entirely open to the committee to make any proposal which it thinks would help to speed the work that lies ahead.

Mr. Mikardo

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed in the five boroughs covered by the Docklands joint scheme and that the council and people of those boroughs will be grateful to him for his share in persuading some of his right hon. Friends—more than one Department is affected—to make some changes in policy which have been urged on them for a long time and which they have been resisting for a long time?

Is my right hon. Friend also aware that worthwhile progress—that is, progress fast enough to achieve something before the area dies—will require the commitment of not insubstantial resources, which are beyond the capacity of the GLC and the five boroughs? Will he continue the good work he has done up to now by standing up and fighting his corner against a Chancellor of the Exchequer who at times seems to be just a shade inflexible about public expenditure?

Mr. Shore

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my efforts in respect of Docklands. I think that there will be a welcome for the statement in London, particularly in the East End. I accept that a new initiative is needed. I think that the proposals will give the encouragement which has so far been lacking. I think that, for example, the ability to advertise the advantages and facilities of East London, which has been denied by statute ever since 1936 in respect of London, is in itself a significant change. In addition, a big difference will be made by the positive steering to the East End, along with new towns, of those firms which will not go to development areas—because we must have national policy in mind, and this is no challenge to the development areas.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that transport is one of the central features of the whole strategy? Would it not have been better if he had made this statement yesterday, when we could have debated it for three-and-a-half hours? London Members missed the right hon. Gentleman very much in our debate at two o'clock this morning. We could then perhaps have shown what a mouse of a document this statement is.

Have we a commitment that legislative time will be found to remove the bar on advertising? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about industrial development certificates having the same sort of basis as for the rest of South-East England "wherever possible". What does "wherever possible" mean, other than a qualification which would render the whole thing meaningless?

Mr. Shore

That certainly is not the intention. The phrase "wherever possible" simply reflects that with all IDCs a number of questions must be asked, and are asked, about the particular circumstances of firms and the suitability of the areas to which they go. That is the meaning of the qualification.

Of course, I should have been very happy had I been able to make my statement earlier, but it has been something of a rush to reach agreement. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the DJC approved its draft final strategy only on 19th July. I do not think that we have done too badly in making a response within a fortnight.

Mr. Christopher Price

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when we speak of the East End we are also talking about South-East London? His statement about advertising and IDCs will be very welcome to an area in which employment opportunities were already becoming worse than in some of the areas which are traditionally thought of as development areas. Is he aware that there is now an urgent need for the transport announcement and that he should make an announcement about the transport options as soon as possible?

Mr. Shore

I am acutely aware of the increase in unemployment not only on the North bank of East London but in South-East London. The transport proposal is a difficult question to decide on its merits. Apart from that, it is a substantial problem in relation to resources. We have recently received a further major submission from the GLC. I shall be considering it urgently.

Mr. Dykes

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, particularly after the newspaper leak this morning, which may have come from his own Department, his statement is an anti-climax and will be depressing to those who expected something more dramatic, apart from the peroration?

Would it not be a good idea for the right hon. Gentleman to make amends by saying a bit more about Government money beyond the battery of assistance he mentioned, including the conventional housing subsidy? More than that will undoubtedly be needed. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with the Treasury in due course the possibility of a separate, specific Docklands development loan, which would rank equally with normal Government gilt-edged stocks? What will he do about the possibility of having, even in modest amounts, some private capital involved in this vast scheme?

Mr. Shore

I mentioned not only the general sources of finance that are available but certain specific grants and loans that are available and no doubt will be applied for by the Docklands authorities. Beyond that, of course we wish to attract industrial development into Docklands. I have considerable confidence that there will be an inflow of private capital into the area. The Docklands Joint Committee looks forward to that.

As for an anti-climax, all I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, whatever else I may do, I do not write the front page of theEvening Standard.

Mr. Spearing

My right hon. Friend will receive great thanks from my constituency, because no less than half the designated area is in Newham, South, and because of the difficulties of local government finance. Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whilst IDCs are welcome, new towns receive IDCs and cash? As the population of East Anglia will increase by 25 per cent. in the next few years, would it not be a good thing to divert a good deal of the expansion to Dock-lands, without additional Government expenditure? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Docklands Joint Committee can now develop the same sort of organisaton as Peterborough and Milton Keynes have, with the same sort of financial support for developing industry from scratch in new areas?

Mr. Shore

My hon. Friend, as he rightly reminded the House, has a special interest in this area as about half of it is in the borough of Newham. As for new towns in relation to the Docklands area, we are now seeking an equivalent status in terms of IDCs between Dock-lands and the new towns. I do not think it entirely fair to say that the new towns have cash whereas East London does not. This makes up, to some extent, for the fact that the new towns, for the very reason that they are new towns, cannot receive the sort of sums that are available to established communities from rate support grant and other means.

My hon. Friend's general point is a very serious one—namely, the balance that should be struck between new and expanding towns and the problems of renewal of our inner cities, which goes wider than the issue of Docklands itself.

My hon. Friend points to the fact that the new towns have a special organisation that helps them, particularly in the planning and building of industrial estates. I do not wish to say more on that, as it would seem to be open to the Docklands Joint Committee, if it were so minded, to agree to put forward a proposal of that kind that might operate across the boroughs as a whole in terms of industrial development.

Mr. Arthur Jones

In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's statement I think I detected some of the recommendations made by the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, which I welcome. I also welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking on behalf of the Government, has referred to the vital necessity of restoring the dereliction in some of our great city centres. London Docklands is an outstanding example near at hand. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise the conflicting objectives that exist, to some extent, within the five London boroughs and the GLC.

If central Government funds are to be found to any significant extent, I hope that he will ensure that the Government have a say in the ultimate character of the redevelopment. That is why I was disappointed when he put the entire emphasis on housing needs, jobs and transport. In terms of a contribution to central London, there is a great deal more that the redevelopment of this vast area of 5,000 acres and more of open space can make not only to enhance the centre of London but by providing facilities for the existing communities. I hope that he will be able to give an assurance in that respect.

Mr. Shore

The hon. Gentleman speaks with the authority of having chaired the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which considered the Docklands issue just over a year ago. If I may say so, I thought that it produced a useful report. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for approaching the matter in such a refreshing and non-partisan manner. All of us who are concerned about London will welcome any progress that can be made at a time of great difficulty to bring new life and prosperity to this great area of our city.

As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the influence that we may have on the development, some of the members of the Docklands Joint Committee are nominated by me. Therefore, there is contact between the Department and those who have strategic control of the Docklands development. I assure the hon. Gentleman that although I have concentrated in my statement, for reasons of brevity, on housing, transport and industry, it is a fact that the Docklands Joint Report goes very much wider. It properly considers amenity, the use of the river and many other factors that I have not been able to include.

Mr. Jay

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has announced very welcome and sensible decisions? Is he also aware that even in the present financial circumstances there is an extremely strong case for the extension of the Fleet Line to these areas?

Mr. Shore

I believe that there is a great necessity to improve transport in the Docklands area. We have some difficult judgments to make, as has the GLC, on priorities—namely, communications that would be basically helpful to the people of the East End in their movements throughout London, communications that would be especially helpful to the location of industry, and communications that are certainly required by the people who are now living in Docklands. It is to reach a judgment between those three matters that I think we need a further study. I am sure that the GLC and others will also be studying them.

Mr. Speed

In the light of the statement, will the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of how he sees both the short-term and long-term implications for the London overspill agreements which, as he will know, are now not very popular either with the receiving authorities or with the Greater London Council? On the industrial development certificate point, if the Secretary of State's optimism is fulfilled it means that there will be a fairly major effect on the overspill programme.

Mr. Shore

That is a point that must be borne in mind. We shall have to give consideration to the general balance between the relative requirements of the renewal of our inner cities and the programmes of the new towns and expanding towns. However, it would be premature for me to venture at this stage an opinion as to the effect of this proposal on London overspill.

Mr. Edward Lyons

I appreciate that there are many good things in the statement, but will my right hon. Friend understand that the substantial change in policy involved in the removal of the ban on advertising for new industry by London boroughs will cause dismay in the regions? Is he aware that in Yorkshire and Humberside anxieties were expressed about what was this possible move, a move that has now come to fruition? On behalf of the regions, I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider that part of the statement which so alters regional policy by allowing London boroughs to advertise for new industry.

Mr. Shore

No, Sir. I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend. Only if hon. Members were to misunderstand what I have said would there be any likelihood of causing dismay in the regions. I have emphasised that the priority of the assisted areas remains untouched. I am concerned about the priority that is followed —for example, if a firm for one reason or another cannot or will not go to an assisted area. It will then be positively steered to a new town or, for the first time, East London.

Mr. Raison

The Secretary of State must have an idea of the public expenditure consequences that will flow from his announcement, especially as we read in theDaily Telegraph that he is to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. What increases in public expenditure will appear in the next White Paper as a result of his announcement?

Mr. Shore

On the 19th July we received the joint committee's amendment to the Docklands strategy. That included some revised spending proposals for what it saw as the first phase—namely, the first five years. It would not be possible for me at this stage to try to spell that out in terms of programmes over the next PESC period.