§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we take the five orders together.
§ 11.8 pm
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw)I beg to move,
That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Local Authorities) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.The orders that I put before the House would vest in the Merseyside development corporation 508 acres of land owned at present by public bodies. It is mainly discarded and derelict dock and railway land within the urban development area that the corporation has been established to regenerate. The orders are made under section 141 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. They cover land in three separate public ownerships—namely the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, the British Railways Board, and the City of Liverpool—and are situated in three districts; Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral. Hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study the maps that show the areas concerned.The orders mark an important step forward in the progress of the Merseyside development corporation, which was established on 25 March this year by an order approved both in this House and in another place.
§ Sir Graham Page (Crosby)Has my hon. Friend noticed that there is not a soul on the Opposition Benches? It seems that no one Opposition Member is interested enough to attend a debate on an important development matter for an area in which there is a great shortage of employment. The Government propose to provide work through which employment may be generated.
§ Mr. ShawI take note of what my right hon. Friend says. Obviously it is a matter of regret that the Opposition are absent. It is also symptomatic of the fact that the passage of the orders is welcomed by those on both sides of the House. This is not a matter of contention between the major parties. It is in a sense a formal endorsement of the progress that was initiated by the establishment of the corporation earlier this year.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree)When the London Docklands Development Corporation orders were debated last week the House had to endure a most contentious debate during which the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) made a number of aspersions about the development corporation and seemed to be more concerned about democracy procedures and consultation than about the fact that £60 million was going into Docklands. Is not my hon. Friend surprised that, given the current situation on Merseyside, not one hon. Member of the Opposition parties is in the Chamber? Should not he say something—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is a long intervention. I had better inform the House that the orders are narrow and consequential. They relate only to the vesting of the land referred to in the five orders. We cannot have a general debate about the situation.
§ Mr. SteenOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The orders for the London Docklands Development Corporation were also vesting orders, and extremely narrow—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Member must catch my eye and make his speech. Then I shall decide whether he is in order. I was merely saying that the intervention was long.
§ Mr. ShawI take note of what my hon. Friend said. There are some major differences between the two events, which might become clearer as we proceed.
The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), who was involved for the Opposition in those matters, said that he totally supports the orders now before the House and that he would not be pressing opposition to them.
Freehold ownership of these areas will enable the corporation to get ahead with a comprehensive, yet sensitive and flexible, approach to the redevelopment of a large part of the urban development area. It will enable the corporation to compete on more equal terms with other areas in attracting investment and it will help the corporation to meet the requirements of the investment institutions. The vesting procedure avoids delaying action on the ground, since the assessment of compensation and much of the detailed work involved in compulsory purchase order procedure or a purchase by agreement do not have to be undertaken until after a vesting order is confirmed, giving relatively speedy landlord control over the land.
The orders were made and laid before Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and British Rail orders. The judgment was reached that all five orders were hybrid. Anyone whose private interests were affected had an opportunity to petition against the orders.
Eight petitions, four each from the MDHC and BR, were laid. Those petitions were not against the principle of the orders. The petitioners were concerned about various matters relating to rights over the land, access, severed parcels of land not covered by the orders, services, statutory and other obligations and other matters which are not dealt with by vesting orders themselves. Discussions with the owners have resulted in agreements being signed and the subsequent withdrawal of all of the petitions. It is possible now, therefore, to proceed with the discussion and, I hope, the approval of the orders by the House.
I shall describe briefly the land covered by the orders. The three orders relating to Mersey Docks and Harbour Company land deal with sites in Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral respectively. In Liverpool, there are some 378 acres of MDHC land in the South docks, the disused oil tank farm at Dingle and other vacant lands at Riverside. Those areas, especially the South docks, need to be dealt with in an integrated way and a series of tasks will be undertaken to bring the land back into active use: some filling of docks, repairs to lock gates and walls, reinstatement of the working machinery to trap the tide in some docks, refurbishing buildings, road and environmental improvements and the provision of basic services.
The MDHC No. 2 order vests six small sites in the portion of the urban development area which lies in the borough of Sefton, in total 6.6 acres. Those sites, together with some larger tracts of railway land to be acquired under the British Railways Board order, are subject to less severe problems of site preparation and will offer some of the earliest opportunities for attracting private sector investment.
686 The MDHC No. 3 order vests the 19 acres Scotts Field on the Wirral. That is a prominent site fronting the River Mersey directly opposite Liverpool city centre with potential for industrial development. Ultimate use will depend on the outcome of discussions with the MDHC on other land in its ownership within the Wirral part of the urban development area and with the North-West Water Authority which has long-term plans for a sewage treatment works in the vicinity, but not necessarily on that site, as part of a programme to clean up the River Mersey. Interim industrial use is a second option.
The British Railways Board order covers sites in all three district council areas. The largest sites are those in Sefton, to which I referred earlier, and those total some 34 acres. The sites in Liverpool are adjacent to the South docks, while, on the Wirral, some six acres of land at Egerton and Woodside offer opportunities for much-needed environmental improvements, and are important also in land assembly and to secure access to larger areas which the corporation hopes to see redeveloped.
Before dealing with the sites in the local authorities order I must apologise to the House for a discrepancy between schedule 2 to the order and the accompanying map. Plot 3—0.76 acres in Sefton—has inadvertently been omitted from the vesting order map. I apologise unreservedly for this. The effect of this will be, if the order is approved, that plots 1 and 2 would vest in the corporation but plot 3 would not do so as a result of the order. Arrangements are in hand for the corporation to purchase the site by agreement from the borough of Sefton.
The remaining two sites are owned by the city of Liverpool—the leasehold of a small plot in Sefton and the freehold of a large 54 acre site of tipped foreshore at Riverside which, together with the adjacent MDHC land, the corporation intends to landscape and develop for recreational use.
The compensation payable for vesting of land cannot be specified at present: It will be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the 1980 Act, which are based upon the open market value of the land assessed in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961. The cost of acquisition of the land vested by these orders will be financed by grant-in-aid from the UDC Vote. The fairly extensive reclamation works required on the land will also be grant financed. The financing of subsequent development on the land will depend on the nature of agreements with developers, among other things.
The land in these orders, together with a further 50 acres which the corporation has approval to acquire by agreement, constitutes a substantial proportion of the fairly tightly defined urban development area. Further possible acquisitions from the MDHC on the Wirral are currently under discussion. In addition, the corporation will be concerned to see that the key Albert/Salthouse/Canning dock area, close to Liverpool centre, is restored and developed. That site remains the subject of negotiations between the MDHC and an interested developer, and the result of a listed building inquiry will be announced shortly. For the moment, however, we are concerned with the vesting of some 508 acres.
These areas of exceptional dereliction and decay require a single-minded and comprehensive approach which also builds upon the assets of existing firms and the geographical advantages of a city centre riverside location. The corporation faces a challenging task. It is equipping 687 itself with key staff, and it has a board that incorporates much local knowledge and expertise. The resources that the Government are making available in this and subsequent years will provide the basis for dealing with the difficult job of securing the regeneration of the deteriorating and derelict areas covered in the orders.
It is the Government's belief that a corporation such as the Merseyside Development Corporation is the only means capable of bringing new life back to these neglected lands. In doing so, co-operation with existing agencies will be a keynote. The corporation expects to make an active start on sites in much of its area in this financial year.
Some engineering and borehole survey work has been undertaken already, and some initial projects in cooperation with the Manpower Services Commission have started. If the House approves the vesting of these lands, the corporation stands ready to get ahead with its statutory duty; securing the much needed regeneration and additional job provision on Merseyside. I commend the orders to the House.
§ Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)As the House will have noticed, certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends are unable to be present to debate these important orders. I apologise particularly for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who was in the House earlier but has had to return to Liverpool. He has asked me to say how much he welcomes these orders. He feels that they play an important part in the development of the urban development corporation, which we believe can, in turn, play an important part in the redevelopment of the heartland of Merseyside. This is an important initiative from the Government, which we welcome.
We are concerned that the resources available to the corporation may not be adequate. There may well be opportunities later to return to that subject. However, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to say that we appreciate these orders and will support them.
§ Sir Graham Page (Crosby)I call attention to the fact that no Labour Member is present. The gallant and brave hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) has turned up to speak for his smaller party and we appreciate his support. The rest of the Opposition Benches are empty.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that the orders covered narrow matters, but they are a substantial step in the development of Merseyside, which has 42 per cent. unemployment in the construction industry. The orders are a step towards massive construction contracts that are already contemplated by the courporation. Some of us have had the projects in hand explained to us. They will make a substantial difference to employment on Merseyside and the future of the area.
The orders vest the several areas covered by the development corporation. Will they have to be followed by further compulsory orders, or do they place properties finally in the hands of the corporation, so that it may develop as it chooses? I understand that there is issue between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the 688 development corporation over apparently derelict land which the company wishes to hold in contemplation of a development scheme.
I do not wish to accentuate the issue. I just want an answer. If the Secretary of State is called on to decide the issue, on what principle will he reach a decision? Will he tell the corporation that it must allow the harbour company to hold land indefinitely, even though it may have no firm plans to develop it before the end of the century, or will he say that the urban development corporation is such an important development that the harbour company must make up its mind to use the land now or allow the corporation to develop it? That applies particularly to the Wirral area.
The orders will be a real benefit to employment on Merseyside. I hope that the development corporation will assist in setting up not just warehouses and buildings directly related to goods going to and fro across the docks but the small businesses that can thrive on the work in the docks. In the old days, the premises of chandlers, small ship repairers, and so on, were part and parcel of dockland. The Liverpool area will be developed far more from the social point of view than from the dock point of view, but the Sefton area is well placed for the development of smaller businesses. I therefore hope that the development corporation will bear that in mind.
Altogether, the Minister may rest assured that 99.9 per cent. of the population on Merseyside welcome these orders.
§ Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree)I am most grateful for the opportunity to say something about these orders, particularly as it is increasingly difficult to catch the eye of the Chair and speak even briefly in major debates. Even at this late hour, it is a great opportunity to say a few words. I shall obey your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the narrower narrowness of the order, which will perhaps also confine me to a limited speech.
I should like to point out to the House that when the vesting orders for the London Docklands Development Corporation were debated on 1 July a full hour and a half was given to the debate, which ranged over a very wide area. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) covered matters of democracy and local structure. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) also made a very volatile and tremendously encouraging speech about the future of that corporation. I mention that only because I hope, in a less wide-ranging speech, to cover some of the matters dealt with in a similar way in the debate on 1 July.
First, I reiterate the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The rioting and wanton violence of the last week in Liverpool have sent shudders through the whole country. The House was packed earlier this week to discuss those matters and no doubt it will be packed for next Thursday's debate when the Opposition will probably press for more Government money. It is therefore amazing and it must be recorded that at this hour, which is not very late, not one right hon. or hon. Member of the principal Opposition party has thought it significant enough, perhaps because they do not think that the press is listening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Here they are."] I am glad that two silent Labour Members are now present. The point is still just as important, however. No Opposition Members, either Labour or Liberal, represent 689 ing Liverpool or Merseyside constituencies feel that the vesting of hundreds of acres of land in that strife-torn city is worth the trouble of staying in the House to debate this crucial order. I have probably laboured the point enough now, but it should be remembered when next Thursday's debate takes place exactly what the situation was today.
This vesting order has a great deal of significance in providing a further example of public intervention in the life of Liverpool. There are various views about the success of public intervention. There have been a great number of campaigns to bring more public money into Liverpool. The figure that I have is that a minimum of £500 million has come into Liverpool from the public sector over the past 10 years. There have been more social workers and community leaders and more social and environmental projects than probably any other city in Europe.
In 1968 we saw the beginning of the urban aid programme. There were then the community development project, the educational priority areas, the inner city studies, the urban deprivation unit, the comprehensive community programmes, the partnerships, the inner urban area Acts, and any number of schemes aimed at bringing in more public money in the hope that this would solve Liverpool's problems.
The urban development corporation is different from these other schemes in one respect. It is based on the belief that the revitalisation and future of the decaying urban areas lies in economic regeneration rather than in social or community work. That is an important departure from the approach of previous schemes. Therefore, although it will mean greater public intervention—and through a quango—it is a fund designed economically to develop the strength and life of Liverpool. To that extent we should welcome it.
Many matters give cause for concern about the urban development corporation. First, will it attract private enterprise? Upon that will depend its success. Will it be able to attract private investment to a strife-torn area? The private investors will want to know whether the returns will be good—whether, if they put their money into Liverpool, they will get as much in return as if they invested elsewhere.
That is one of the problems that need to be dealt with at an early stage. Unless the private investor can be persuaded to invest in this strife-torn area there can he no growth in Liverpool. We must consider therefore, whether the urban development corporation on its own will bring the private sector to Liverpool. Will the Minister deal with that? I am not sure that by itself the corporation will possess sufficient financial inducement to do so.
Infrastructure is crucial. Unless it is provided—with State money—there will be a greater inducement for the private sector to locate on the green field sites on the edge of the city. What inducement will there be, therefore, for the investment to go to the inner city and not to the outskirts? Will the Minister say whether there will be special incentives to encourage firms to go "down town" rather than outside the city.
A number of other matters need to be considered when we vest the land. Has the Minister considered establishing a free port on the land where the urban development corporation is currently based? If such a port were established—and the land is well prepared for a free port—it would bring the great advantages of a tax haven, much like the Shannon port in Ireland, which has attracted 690 so much private enterprise. If the key to Liverpool's revitalisation is the attraction of private enterprise and the return of private investment, there must be some tax incentive or other financial inducement to achieve that.
A tax haven or free port would have the significant advantage in that goods could be landed from ships straight on to the docks. There can be manufacturing companies on the docks, contained within a wall or fence. Those companies can change the nature of goods brought in from abroad and ship them out again without paying any duties or tax.
The advantages of tax-free ports all over the world are well known. The small firm with cash flow problems can manufacture goods brought in in their raw state and send them out without having to go through the painful process, with all the bureaucracy entailed, of paying duty and tax.
There are advantages in having part of the land already in the urban development corporation earmarked, on the Liverpool side anyway, as a tax-free port. the matter has been raised many times in Liverpool, and the general feeling in the city is that any scheme that is likely to bring back more private enterprise should be encouraged. It will not cost the Government any extra money. All that they have to do is to mark out the area that will be the free port. Then it will be policed by a self-financing corporation that can look after the security aspects. Goods can be landed there and stored. If there is a quota on them, they can be brought into the country and at that point duty is paid.
The vesting orders have great advangtages, in that the development corporation can immediately start on the infrastructure. Rather than give financial inducements in the shape of grants from public funds, the Government should remember that the introduction of a tax-free zone or free port would cost them no extra money, but could give small businesses a chance to succeed.
This is a narrow order, and it would be wrong of me to go on much longer on a matter that you may feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is extraneous to the main argument. But this is a much more important matter than the numbers on the Opposition Benches suggest. I hope that next Thursday I shall catch the eye of the Chair and be able to say some of the things that I feel the House would prefer me not to say tonight.
§ Mr. Giles ShawWith the leave of the House, I should like to comment briefly on the points that have been raised in the debate.
I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) on behalf of himself and his party, and in particular on behalf of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who cannot be present tonight. I am grateful for the hon. Member's welcome for the orders.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) asked whether a compulsory purchase order procedure would have to follow vesting. It would not; the vesting orders are themselves sufficient for the completion of the purchase arrangements. There would be the possibility of the urban development corporation's acquiring other land by CPO or, we hope, by agreement, should it see fit to do so. However, the vesting orders will complete the transference of ownership of the existing parcels of land.
691 I cannot comment on any determination by the Secretary of State without knowing the circumstances. However, my right hon. Friend is as keen as anyone to see that the development is not hindered in any way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said that the land should not be developed purely for warehousing and other facilities associated with the port. It is the corporation's objective to encourage any enterprise for which this would by a suitable site, and certainly not to limit its scope of inquiry or development prospects to those types of warehousing or other operations with which my right hon. Friend is familiar.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) raised some more fundamental questions. In particular, he asked whether the work of the urban development corporation would be enough to attract private sector development and the wide range of industries that he, in common with all others connected with Merseyside, would wish to see. I must remind him that the urban development corporation is not the only means by which industrial development will be attracted to Merseyside. he will be aware of the enterprise zone at Speke, and will know that that is the part of Merseyside that will attract the most favourable tax provisions.
That is not the case with the UDC. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that when completed, the UDC will offer an extremely advantageous industrial site at the very centre of the city. If its river frontage, communications and access are properly and aggressively marketed, the UDC should be able to attract substantial private-sector involvement. At least one developer is already in discussion with the UDC about a certain portion of the lands under consideration tonight.
A free port has not been seriously considered. There are some limitations and restrictions on such a prospect within the EEC. It is not fair to compare the complex at Shannon—which is not only a free port but a substantial industrial development run by the Republic of Ireland—with the free port that has been described. The comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends are indicative of the fact that those who are involved with the hideous problems surrounding Merseyside welcome the 692 prospect of land being vested in the UDC. Although we set out tonight with a small beginning—vesting 508 acres in this way—we have sure foundations on which to build. I trust that the orders will meet with the approval of the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Local Authorities) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14 April, be approved.