HC Deb 13 January 1976 vol 903 cc345-58

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The problems facing the port-based industries of East London are at long last getting better known. Tonight I should like to concentrate on some immediate matters that are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. I hope to deal with basic problems, drawing on examples in my own constituency that are illustrative of the problems as a whole.

Many people in East London think that the Government are either picking on East London or are deliberately ignoring it. I do not happen to believe either, but I must say that the collective impact of the Department of the Environment policies, each of which comes from a different section of that widely spread empire, is having and may yet have even more serious consequences for the life of the people and the community of East London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can reassure me that some internal machinery checks up on the combined effects of these policies; or does his Department have to rely on Members of Parliament "squawking" after all the decisions have been taken?

The first main issue that I want to raise is that of the Port of London Authority. As everyone knows, its centre of gravity is going downstream, for reasons that are well understood. But there is a belief, which I share, that the Port of London has lost rather more of its conventional traffic than it should have done.

This is not the main reason for the cash problem that now faces the Port of London Authority, as now revealed in the Press. The reasons are understandable, as is the apprehension concerning the Monitoring Committee and the Government's response to the PLA's request to extend its borrowing powers.

Shipowners, shipping agents, employees and local authorities are all waiting with some apprehension to see what the Government will be asking the PLA to do, particularly if the Government ask the Authority to rationalise some of the facilities that might be needed in the future. For instance, the closure of the West India Docks might be thought to produce a book saving, but, without taking proper account of the human factors, a wrong decision may be taken. If the Minister does not believe this, perhaps he would ask the shippers and shipowners about the West India Docks.

Of course, long-term changes may be necessary, but I do not think that these docks, with their deep-water quays, should ever cease to be an asset to London as a whole. It is frequent in industry today that equipment and facilities are scrapped or closed instead of investigations being made of the ways in which they can be rearranged in order to take advantage of new opportunities.

There is also concern about asset stripping by the PLA in order to pay current costs or to make the balance sheet look rather healthier for Government inspectors. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the PLA is not being forced to do this by the Government. Despite a very difficult year, selective investment in new plant is still required. We want to see the proper staff kept by for an upturn in trade when world trade picks up.

An automatic block on investment would be wrong. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that is not in the Government's mind. He may be able to tell us something more about the Government's thinking concerning the recent application for an extension of the port's borrowing powers. He may not be able to give a final answer tonight, but he will be aware of the considerable concern throughout London on this issue and the future of the port in general, and particularly its scope for handling conventional cargo at the up-river docks.

However, the much deeper question is that of London competition with the northern EEC ports of mainland Europe. Given equal productivity and reliability—and I am glad to see that productivity in London has risen by about 20 per cent. last year—it must be remembered that continental ports, particularly Rotterdam, Antwerp and Dunkirk, are heavily subsidised in a way which British ports are not. This difference has meant that more and more traffic has been going by feeder services, some of it by lorry, to and from ports in Europe en route to the deep-sea trades. The Department and its predecessor, the Ministry of Transport, did not seem to recognise the danger to London and the danger of British ports becoming more and more terminal services for the inter-continental depots of shipping conferences on the Continent. They have been unable to answer questions of mine on this traffic and I believe that they have yet to initiate proper studies.

The National Ports Council Bulletin No. 7 has highlighted this problem, and I hope that the Government will study it. The future of the Port of London and much surrounding industry depends on Government policy on EEC subsidy of ports. What are the Government going to do, and when? This situation affects London because it is perhaps more susceptible to competition from these other ports on the Continent than any other of our ports.

In the past, the port has spawned a great deal of manufacturing industry, but again London is in trouble. It has lost 34 per cent. of its jobs in manufacturing since 1961, whereas the national figure is about 5 per cent. East London has taken the brunt of the decline. Have the Government now abandoned the general post-war assumption that industry can be drawn from London as water from a well? We have always had policies for areas of expansion, but not for the areas from which industry has been drawn. It is sometimes assumed that reduction of population is of itself desirable, but if the remaining population is less well balanced in age or skill and has to sustain local services. in fact things can get worse.

The existing official planning policies as contained in the Greater London Development Plan and the Strategy for the South-East are universally agreed to be out of date. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in answering a Written Question of mine on 13th October, promised that a review of the South-East Strategy would be published early this year and, moreover, would be in Green Paper form. That was most welcome and I hope that my hon. Friend will tonight be able to tell us when we may expect it and the range of policy that it is likely to consider.

I know that industrial development certificates are not specifically my hon. Friend's responsibility, but there has been a fairly tight policy for London even where sites have become vacant and factories have had to be expanded. I hope that the Department of Trade at least will note that inside dockland there is plenty of space and that its IDC policy may not now be appropriate for the dockland statutory area.

In East London, many firms have started, done well, exploited the population, invested their profits and production elsewhere, and moved out. Ordinary people in East London do not need lessons in capitalism from textbooks. They see it with their own eyes and know of it from the experience of their own families.

The latest example is the British subsidiary of ITT, the American international firm, Standard Telephones and Cables, which told me, Newham Council, the Dockland Joint Committee and its employees in March 1975 that it would be staying in its large plant in North Woolwich, but just before Christmas announced that it would be closing it, which will mean that over 1,000 people will be out of work this year. Many are skilled and will never work again despite the contribution that they could make to our export trade and despite their ingenuity in their work.

Nearly next door is Tate & Lyle. Mr. Cube constantly tells us how well he has done out of sugar since he has expanded into so many other fields. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is at the moment considering plans for the rationalisation of the port cane refining industry, which is required subsequent to the phasing out of Australian sugar. In the last few years, 8,000 jobs have disappeared from my constituency and now, with the threat of the closure of Tate & Lyle and of STC, there is the possibility of another 4,000 or more jobs disappearing. It is little wonder that the unemployment rate in the Canning Town district is over 7 per cent., which is similar to and even greater than the figure in many development areas in the United Kingdom.

I am glad to tell the House that the Dockland Joint Committee is energetically tackling these problems. But we have not got very much from the Secretary of State. His response to the Report of the Expenditure Sub-Committee on dockland redevelopment was most disappointing, particularly on the subject of capital expenditure. In a Written Answer on 4th November last, I was told that some £200 million was to be spent on the new towns in South-East England in the next three years. The amount on expanding towns is unknown.

If my hon. Friend cannot tell me how much is going into expanding towns, I suggest that considerable sums be directed to the needs of East London, and particularly to the statutory dockland area. I am not advocating that development of new towns should be stopped, but some of the capital should be diverted or made available in some way to sustain the plans of the Dockland Joint Committee. I reinforce that plea by saying that should any of these words appear in the Stratford Express, they will be printed in Milton Keynes.

Unlike the expanding towns, the London boroughs and the GLC do not have the financial powers to inform industrialists and others of the facilities that are available in the Greater London area. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that he will change the powers in this respect. A change is badly needed for certain parts of London. Some of the buses passing the Newham Planning Office bear the words "Come to Peterlee". That highlights the problem that we have to face.

Transport is extremely important in London, but I do not think that the Department of the Environment knows very much about water transport. In London in 1963 13 million tons of cargo was handled by lighterage, but this year only 3 million tons will be handled. The new Lash and Seabee barge systems are working well in London and Bacat would be welcome.

I now turn to rail transport. The London Royal Dock system has been severed from the railway system, although it has 30 deep-water berths and handles a million tons of cargo a year. It has been severed despite the Government's policy of putting traffic on to rail from road. It now seems that the passenger service is likely to be cut at Easter, although the recent Barran Report said that it should be extended and strengthened with a new interchange station on the District Line at West Ham. We now have a clash between the two services and the official Report. The same Report recommended the setting up of a London rail committee, and that recommendation has been endorsed by the GLC. That decision has been with the Minister for some time. I hope that he knows what action he is to take. We are all waiting for the Minister's response.

There has been much local initiative about housing. The East End boroughs have been successful in the post-war period. Newham and its predecessor have built approximately 25,000 new dwellings since the war, but there have been abrupt changes of policy linked with financial pressures from the Government. I do not think that the Government have always shown that they have been aware of the local difficulties caused by policy changes. The former West Ham Council was most reluctant to build tower blocks, but it was pressed into doing so by certain financial mechanisms. When I say that Ronan Point was one of the blocks so built, the Minister will understand what I mean. It will be understood that I am criticising the push of fashion.

The latest policy switch has been to rehabilitation. This may be a correct policy in general terms, but it is the implementation that causes difficulties. The Drew Road CPO in Silvertown in my constituency is a good example. The limits of the area have been changed as a result of the departmental inspector changing the classification of several houses thought by the borough to be unfit. Classification has been changed from "fit" to "unfit". That has thrown the programme of the council into some confusion. Extra costs may well be involved in making these houses habitable, although, according to a Written Answer, the Minister does not seem to have taken that into account. The change of policy in the definition of what is fit and unfit has interfered with the physical and financial plans of the local authority. That will probably be the situation not only in East London but elsewhere in the country.

The Secretary of State may think that many houses in East London can best be dealt with by rehabilitation. That may be true, but he has the duty to show how it can be done. He must make an estimate of the costs involved so that he can prove his point. That is particularly true in respect of the Liverpool Road CPO in my area, where the wrong decision will jeopardise phase 3 of the policy.

There is another area in the Addington Road which I hope the Minister will shortly categorise as an action area. There are many similar areas in East London and if they are not categorised as action areas, there will be a cynical response from many people. Failure so to categorise would imply that no action is required when it is quite clear that action must be taken.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)

When my hon. Friend mentioned Liverpool Road, was he referring to the Drew Road scheme or to a different scheme?

Mr. Spearing

It is a different scheme. The Drew Road scheme is a scheme involving decisions to change from an unfit category to a fit category. I believe that that will have a severe impact on phase 3 of the Liverpool Road scheme, which is a distinct scheme.

There has been traditional Government support for many years in East London. The area has had to face some of the changes flowing from the Government investment plans that are now before us. It is true that the area now requires some evidence that the policies of the Depart- ment of the Environment are properly co-ordinated.

As for the future, cuts in local expenditure which affect the life of the community will not be supported—in other words, any absolute cuts in future will not be given the response given to the present programme. Many people who support the Government—and, indeed, they are people upon whom the Government depend—will watch the situation closely. I hope that tonight they will be given some reassurance by the Minister.

10.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for using this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the problems faced by the people who live in this important area, among whom are his constituents. I wish to thank my hon. Friend for the notice he gave of the wide-ranging subjects that he wished to cover in the debate.

I think that it would be useful if I dealt first with what I might call the strategic and planning issues, and then went on to answer as many of the detailed transport, housing and ports questions as I can.

It is a standing joke in the Department that when the building concerned was designed the architect had in mind the three Departments of State then involved—the old Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the old Ministry of Works, and the old Ministry of Transport. The architect bore this factor in mind, designed the building with three great towers, and ensured that they met only at the lowest possible level.

I should like to assure my hon. Friend—and also my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) who is present for this debate and who has a great interest in this area of London—that there are mechanisms in my Department which monitor the collective impact of departmental policies in particular fields in any given area.

The Department was set up with the aim of co-ordinating policies in the planning, housing and transport fields, and we constantly monitor our own monitoring activities to maintain and, where necessary, improve that co-ordination. I would hope that my speech here tonight will indeed demonstrate that factor. Although my prime responsibilities in the Department are for planning and local government matters, I hope that I shall be able to answer my hon. Friends' points on housing and transport and that these will be seen to slot into this coherent approach.

I turn to the question of a general strategy for the dockland area and how redevelopment there is to be financed. A draft strategy for the redevelopment of the area is now being prepared by the Docklands Joint Committee and this should be published for public consultation in the spring. A great deal of preparatory work for this has already been done. The Government will do all they can to help the redevelopment of the docklands go forward.

The recent White Paper made it quite clear that development in the docklands will be eligible for all the normal forms of Government support to transport, housing and other purposes. These are, of course, considerable, and include transport supplementary grant, housing subsidies, home improvement grants and derelict land grant as well as rate support grant. In my view, there is no reason why the scheme cannot go ahead at a sensible pace on this basis.

The authorities will also be able to borrow capital through the usual channels open to local authorities. I am aware from recent correspondence that some of the constituent authorities of the Dock-lands Joint Committee are concerned about the likely level of capital allocations. The crucial question here is whether the rate of capital expenditure which the docklands strategy will require can be accommodated without undue strain within the total capital authorisations for various types of programme likely to be given to the authorities involved. This assessment will be made by the Department of the Environment when the final strategy has been published in the light of the estimates to be published in the Public Expenditure White Paper next month.

Assuming that the strategy is acceptable in resource terms, it is unlikely to founder because of finance difficulties in the narrower sense, namely in connection with the raising and servicing of loans. This aspect will, however, need to be checked to ensure that the phasing of the project is not such as to produce severe peaks in the borrowing requirements of the individual authorities. As my hon. Friend is aware, officials of my Department are now examining with the Dockland Development Team and the GLC the financial and resource implications of the redevelopment of the area, together with possible phasings and options. I am glad to say that good progress is being made.

I would like here, briefly, to refer to the South-East strategy. My hon. Friend mistakenly referred to a Green Paper but what is being prepared is not a Green Paper. It is an interim report by a team that is reviewing the existing Strategic Plan for the South-East, and will be in the nature of a progress report to the commissioning body by the joint team of central and local government officers involved. I understand that very good progress is being made in this regard.

I would like to turn to the question of the industry to which the area owes so much of its character, the docks, which are the primary industry of this area. The Port of London is still the country's major all-purpose port, although the amount of traffic has declined. With the advent of bulk ships, fleet rationalisation and, of course, the drastic changes wrought by the container revolution, there has been a reduction in conventional break bulk cargo handling. As my hon. Friend knows, the major developments at Tilbury in recent years have inevitably led to a shift away from the older docks to the newer, downstream part of the port. All these tendencies have been greatly compounded by the world-wide reduction in the general level of economic activity—an unwelcome fact which support industries, such as transport, are among the first to experience. Realism requires me to take note of all these facts.

I would like, at the outset, to stress that many of the points my hon. Friend has raised, on precisely how investment is to be used, are matters of detailed management, which are and must be the responsibilt of the PLA itself. It is convinced that there will be a continuing need for many years for conventional cargo-handling facilities in the up-river docks.

Even so, there is little doubt that in spite of the complete closures which have already taken place at St. Katherine's, Surrey and the London Docks, there will still be an excess of capacity over future demand. It is, therefore, a question of judgment how far, and how fast, further rationalisation should proceed. The Government are fully aware of my hon. Friend's misgivings about the possible effects of premature berth closures, which would be psychologically damaging and possibly preclude the hoped-for recovery and expansion of up-river traffic. I have no doubt that the PLA management is fully seized of these problems and will be at pains to reach a well-founded commercial judgment.

I think we must accept that some reduction in capacity will be inevitable, but I am also sure that the PLA will not put into effect any major rationalisation measures without full and sympathetic consultation before hand with all the interests affected. Strenuous efforts to recover old and to attract new traffic to the port are being made, and since April last year there has been an impressive improvement—of up to 30 per cent.—in productivity and in shortening turn-round times. My hon. Friend said he hoped that asset stripping would not be forced by the Government. I can assure him that this is not forced by the Government.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the agreement which the Authority has sought from my right hon. Friend for an increase in its temporary borrowing powers. These loans would help the Authority during the inevitably difficult period arising from the fall-off in trade. My right hon. Friend is considering this request and hopes to arrive at a decision very soon.

Before I turn from industry to transport, there are two points raised by my hon. Friend which I would like to answer. First, he raised the prohibition on London local authorities from giving publicity to the commercial and industrial advantages of London, which dates back to 1936. The GLC is now considering whether to promote legislation to remove the ban, but it has been advised that at present my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will wish to consider very carefully the consequences of any change on Government regional policy.

I am fully seized of the fact that the whole of the South-East and the whole of London are not prosperous. One cannot look at the region as a whole and ignore its constituent parts. I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend, because I come from a depressed area, and I know that there are depressed areas in London as well.

Secondly, there is the question of renewing old factories. The Department of Industry sympathetically considers proposals by existing occupants to modernise and improve premises—for example, in parts of central London—and to improve efficiency, provided the projects involve no more than modest increases in labour and no significant change in the range of products.

I turn to railways. The procedure for closing a rail passenger service is, of course, governed by statute. Under this procedure it is for the Railways Board to propose the closure of a line, but if there are objections from passengers, the Board cannot proceed without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has a statutory duty to take into account hardship to rail users and relevant economic and social considerations in arriving at his decision. There has been no application for closure of the Tottenham-North Woolwich line, or any other line in this part of East London.

The last major areas that I should like to cover are new towns and housing. My hon. Friend said that one cannot draw water from a well eternally. I agree, but the policy with regard to new towns is not that of drawing water from a well eternally. London's future need for new and expanded towns is currently being reviewed by the GLC. I understand that a paper by GLC officials, which has yet to be considered by the Council, suggests that London will have a continuing need for housing in new towns, since the estimated excess of households over dwellings in London this year is over 150,000. But the GLC is anxious that this should not be at the expense of exporting industrial jobs. My right hon. Friend's acceptance in the context of the Greater London Development Plan of the continuation of the present target movement of 20,000 persons per annum from London to new and expanded towns is, of course, subject to review in the light of changing circumstances.

The house-building programme of the new towns serving London is being considered in the light of the GLC's review. It will no doubt be influenced by whatever recommendations may emerge from the GLC, but in practice the new and expanded towns together take a relatively small proportion of the total migration from London.

Ongoing new town and town expansion programmes need not directly affect the resources available for the improvement of inner cities, or, indeed, for the development of areas of obsolescence such as dockland. Nevertheless, it seems to be becoming fashionable to blame the new and expanding towns for London's present social, employment and financial problems, simply because they have so successfully achieved their aim of relieving the population, housing and employment pressures on the capital. But this is exactly what they were designed to do. All concerned with the operation of town expansion schemes—especially the GLC and the counties and districts at the receiving end—are to be congratulated on their achievements since the Town Development Act of 1952.

My hon. Friend referred to various recent schemes within his constituency. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction proposes to visit Newham in the near future, when he will take the opportunity to discuss with officials many of the housing matters of concern to the Council.

The issues involved in a Part III compulsory purchase order are, first, whether the houses are unfit within the meaning of the statute, and, secondly, whether demolition is the most satisfactory way of dealing with the situation. Both those conditions must be satisfied before an order can be confirmed. Houses may be dilapidated and defective, and in need of repair and improvement, without necessarily being statutorily unfit.

I do not think that it can be the case that the Drew Road decision places housing schemes elsewhere in the borough in any jeopardy.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the Addington Road housing action area. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering what action he should take in regard to the Council's declaration. I can assure my hon. Friend that an early decision will be given—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned al twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.