HC Deb 19 March 1981 vol 1 cc511-31

10 pm

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King)

I beg to move, That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved. Following the passing of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, approval was given by Parliament in principle to the concept of UDCs. Tonight marks the laying of the first order for one of the UDCs. We made clear in Committee and on Report our intention that there should be only two—one for Merseyside and one for London Docklands. This first order marks the first stage in the establishment of the Merseyside UDC.

The proposal that I put before the House involves the setting up of the corporation to achieve the regeneration of some 865 acres of the redundant dock areas of Merseyside. It involves the district council areas of Liverpool, Sefton and the Wirral. Hon. Members will have had the opportunity to study the maps which set out clearly the areas envisaged.

The Government made clear in the discussions on the Local Government, Planning and Land Act their belief that the approach of an urban development corporation, involving a single-minded agency tackling problems of exceptional dereliction with sufficient resources and powers, was an appropriate way to find a solution to very long-standing problems.

It may help the House if I recall the progress that has taken place since the passing of the Act. It was necessary for the orders to be laid, and the judgment was reached in another place that both orders, for Merseyside and for London Docklands, were hybrid. This involved the opportunity for petitions to be laid against both orders. One petition was laid against the Merseyside order, but this was subsequently withdrawn. It is therefore now possible, without interruption, to proceed to the discussion and, we hope, the approval of the order by the House.

I shall deal briefly with the corporation, its powers and the area involved. I must say at once that this is a novel procedure. I understand that there may well be queries and uncertainties that hon. Members wish to raise. With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to reply to the debate and clear up any misunderstandings before hon. Members are asked to reach a decision on the matter.

As hon. Members will be aware, the board already exists in "shadow" form in terms of its senior members. Its shadow chairman is Mr. Leslie Young; its deputy chairman is Sir Kenneth Thompson; and its chief executive is Mr. Basil Bean. I think that hon. Members are familiar with the precedent which exists for setting up a shadow corporation in this form. In an enterprise of this kind, it is clearly important that there should be the minimum hiatus. With the shadow corporation, it has therefore been possible for a considerable amount of preparatory work to be undertaken in advance of the establishment of the corporation proper.

If the order is approved tonight the Secretary of State proposes to confirm the appointments of Mr. Leslie Young, Sir Kenneth Thompson and Mr. Bean to the board. Other appointments will be made shortly and will include those, in the words of the Act, having special knowledge of the locality". As hon. Members will see from the order, the Secretary of State can appoint 11 members plus the chairman and deputy chairman. It is our intention that the corporation should operate with a small staff. It will work very much in conjunction with local expertise. In other words, it will not seek to be a master of all trades but will "buy in" local skills, use local firms and work with and use the services of the local authorities in the areas in which it will operate.

Part XVI of the Act provides for a wide range of specific and general powers to be exercised by the corporation in carrying out its tasks. In that connection, hon. Members will have noticed that the subsequent provisions relate to the arrangements which may be made for excluding any of those powers if that is thought appropriate. The order makes no proposals for any exclusions. In other words, the Merseyside Development Corporation will have full powers as set out in the Act.

However, I enter one caveat. We have no current intentions to bring forward subsequent orders to enable the corporation to exercise either building control functions or the powers of a housing authority. None the less, the corporation will still be able to provide housing under its general powers, although it will not assume the full responsibilities of a housing authority.

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

The right hon. Gentleman said that the order does not exclude building powers. Does it contain planning authority proposals?

Mr. King

The hon. Gentleman is extremely alert, because that is the next paragraph in my speech.

It is the Government's intention that the corporation should have the full range of planning authority powers which the Act permits. My right hon. Friend accordingly intends to lay a further order, which will be subject to negative resolution, to cover planning aspects, as well as orders which will cover the vesting of certain publicly owned land.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

The part of the Merseyside Development Corporation in my constituency, as proposed on the present boundaries, includes the only existing housing anywhere in the boundaries. The Minister said that the urban development corporation will not assume the full role of a housing authority but will have certain housing powers. How will the UDC's jurisdiction be exercised over existing houses within the boundaries that are to be designated?

Mr. King

The existing housing authority in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is Sefton. I am aware of the housing estate to which he refers. The situation will remain exactly as it is. It will remain the responsibility of the Sefton council. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, because it was a concern well before the concept of an urban development corporation. If the hon. Gentleman succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair, I shall be able to respond to him at greater length on this point. I am aware of his concern, and I hope that what I have said will be taken as an interim reply.

I turn to the financial arrangements. As last week's estimates showed, we have made a level of grant provision for the corporation of £16.5 million in the coming year. That sum is additional to the £17 million that has been allocated to the Liverpool partnership for the coming year, and the Wirral can expect to receive about £2 million as an inner city programme authority.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree)

Is my right hon. Friend saying that of the £88 million allocated to development corporations in Liverpool and London, London will get £72 million and Liverpool only £16 million?

Mr. King

The figure is £82 million, and the division is then correct. My hon. Friend has also been quick on his feet. The next sentence states that it is possible that further sums will be allocated to the new development corporation in 1981–82. We may have more to say about that in the course of the year.

In the first year of operation, inevitably, much of the expenditure will be for land acquisition and initial reclamation work, but provision is made in the strategy—which we expect to be published by the UDC shortly—for expenditure on environmental schemes, infrastructure and industrial support.

I deal now with the reasons for choosing the areas for the UDC. Inevitably, difficulties occur in selecting an area—which must be limited—for the provision of the UDC. The first was to identify the areas that we believed suffered from the worst dereliction and were, therefore, most in need of the regenerative capability that a UDC can contribute. Secondly, in seeking the areas of worst dereliction we were anxious not to prejudice the existing operating capability of the port of Liverpool. The third criterion was to see in what ways, by establishing areas that might be most suitable for port-related activities, we might be able to support and encourage the parts of the port that are successful. The fourth criterion was not to cut across local authorities' existing efforts where they have been anxious to support and stimulate industrial and economic revival.

As a result, as hon. Members will see from the order and the simple map attached, three parcels of land are involved. Most of the land is in public ownership. Almost three-quarters of it is owned by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Much of the balance is owned by British Rail.

Mr. James A. Dunn

The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement of great significance. There is no Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It is the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, which is a private company. The land is therefore in private ownership.

Mr. King

It is difficult, because we are discussing the MDHC and the MDC, which will replace it. The hon. Gentleman is correct. I should have said the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. I shall come to the point about the land. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the public support involved in the company.

Much of the land proposed for designation as an urban development area on Merseyside is in pretty bad shape. The majority is derelict docks. At the same time, some of it has an economic life, a sort of second life of its own. A number of warehouses have been taken over by small firms which have found them useful and valuable. Those firms are undoubtedly taking advantage of the low rents that exist but in many cases they operate in pretty poor conditions. A number have no real security of tenure under the present situation.

The South Docks ceased effective operation in the early 1970s. They are full of polluted silt. There are problems to be faced. At the same time, many of the sheds house small companies. There is a big job to be done to attract private investment. We believe that with encouragement there could be a valuable and profitable base for the economic development of the area. The Riverside area, which has been partly cleared, involved petrol storage. We believe that it is capable, with suitable landscaping, of being used for housing provision. The Bootle docks and its back-up land is also an area where the support and port-related activities could be helpful.

Across the river there are further derelict docks in Birkenhead and in Wallasey. I note the presense of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), and appreciate her interest in this matter. Here again, a problem exists of derelict dock areas, which are being used by some small firms. There exists the opportunity, which the stimulus of an urban development corporation can provide, for far more effective utilisation.

These areas together make up a challenge to which we believe the Merseyside Development Corporation is an effective response. This response, we believe, can be achieved by the development corporation only if it is done with the full co-operation of the existing tenants, the local authorities and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. A shadow team is already at work. It has had close consultation with bodies already existing in the area. This must clearly continue. If the urban development corporation is to succeed and if this initiative, backed by a significant sum of public money, is to be successful, there must be the closest co-operation and consultation with the bodies in the area, not merely with the statutory undertakers and the local authorities but with other existing landlords.

This is a major challenge to an area that has faced dereliction and decline for far too long. It is a major public initiative that I am inviting the House to approve. I would be the first to recognise that public initiative on its own will not succeed. The test for the development corporation, if the House chooses to approve it tonight, will be whether it can provide the climate, the opportunity and the pump-priming initiative that will encourage outside private investment to play its part.

I believe that the corporation has the framework and has the beginnings of the team that can achieve this task. If it does, it will make a major contribution to the regeneration of one of the most significant but, sadly, most significantly declining parts of the United Kingdom. I commend the order to the House.

10.18 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes)

The House is grateful to the Minister for the full way in which he introduced the order, which is of great importance to the whole of Merseyside and the North-West of England. I can assure him that the Opposition have no intention of voting against the order. We would never vote against anything that brought desperately needed money to the Merseyside area. There are, however, aspects of the order and the whole concept of the urban development corporation and its creation about which many Opposition Members are exceedingly sceptical.

Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), I am disappointed with the moneys that will be made available. Almost exactly one-fifth of the £82 million—it is not £88 million—will go to Merseyside, while four-fifths will go to London. We are dealing with over 800 acres. In the first year almost all of the £16 million will be devoted to acquisition costs. Not much will be spent except on acquisition costs. This is urban land that is owned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) correctly said, by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.

The Government are appointing a chairman, a deputy chairman and 11 other members, including the chief executive, to do a job which effectively could have been done well by the democratically elected local authorities. The local authorities lacked only the money. The money is being provided to the body that will be appointed by the Secretary of State. I was delighted when the Minister said that he hoped that the body created would work in close co-operation with the local authorities. Disaster will result to Merseyside and Liverpool if the two entities become in high conflict with each other. They must work together for the ultimate benefit of Merseyside.

When we were discussing this matter in Committee the Minister often said that the urban development corporation would enshrine that same sort of structure as a new town but within an urban context. I accept that view. However, I cannot envisage any new town corporation operating in the geographical manner in which the order has been designed. There are four separate pieces of land, two of them together in Birkenhead, one in Bootle and one in Liverpool, which are divided by an estuarial river. This is a different concept from a new town where one deals with virgin territory and assemblies of land all in one unit. There are not only three separate local authorities and a council to deal with, but these are dockland areas only. I admit that there are some marshalling yards at Sefton, but basically the corporation will be taking over docklands.

Is it not a misnomer to describe this undertaking as the urban development corporation for Merseyside? It is really a dockland development corporation. This could create problems for the rest of the area and for the local authorities in what they are trying to do.

Those of my hon. Friends who represent Liverpool constituencies, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), could each argue constructively that the whole of his constituency is in difficulty. There are vast areas of derelict land. There are vast areas that need to be developed within Bootle and within different parts of Liverpool. The scheme involves 800 acres of dockland only. The urban development corporation will have to think carefully when it co-ordinates its activities with what the local authoritites have done and are doing in developing the whole of Merseyside area. I foresee difficulties unless great care is exercised by the corporation.

The chairman, the chief executive and the deputy chairman have been named, but we are disappointed that we do not know who the other members will be. No doubt the Secretary of State knows who the other 10 people will be. It should be possible for him to name tonight those who are to be members of the development corporation. It is a matter of great concern in Merseyside. We hope that they will be people from Merseyside, or at least from the North-West of England. We do not want appointees from London or some other area. We want people who have an indigenous interest in the area. I am only sorry that the Minister has not been able to give us the names in this debate.

I mentioned the difficulties that the corporation will have in connection with the existing local authorities—the four separate parts divided by an estuary. I remind the Minister that within 20 miles of the area there are no fewer than four new town corporations, some of which are being wound down. They are Skelmersdale, Central Lancashire new town, Runcorn and Warrington. All are within 20 miles and are competing for resources and industry, as are the special development areas. So it will be difficult for the development corporation to attract investment to the area.

That leads me to the next matter—the type of development that the Secretary of State envisages. He mentioned some housing functions. I am not sure whether he was talking about houses that the development corporation would take over because they are in a designated area, or new building and new housing within the designated area.

Mr. King

Both.

Mr. Oakes

The Minister says that he meant both. He is not asking for housing authority powers, and no order is coming before the House in that respect, so presumably the existing district housing authority will be the housing authority. I am glad to see that the Minister agrees.

The Minister mentioned commercial developments in the area and dock-related development. What sort of development does he have in mind? Is it private sector or public sector development? There was a scheme for Government offices, and it was a highly attractive proposition, because it would have brought Government offices to Merseyside. Will the Government assist their own development corporation—their own appointees—by building Government offices, and thus provide much-needed office jobs in our area? That would be a great attraction.

My fear is—I hope that I am wrong—that nothing will happen. We have seen many schemes for Merseyside, including paper schemes to develop the docklands, which have all come to naught. Some were produced by the local authority, and others by the county council. Now we have this new authority, in which we are putting much hope, as I am sure the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) will understand. Nevertheless, we are somewhat sceptical, unless there is more positive Government assistance than £16 million, about whether it will actually bring work and jobs to Merseyside.

Mr. Steen

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that the local authority has encouraged many schemes over the years, but he must accept that his side, too, introduced many schemes. I shall not bore the House by giving the full list, but it includes comprehensive community programmes and partnerships, which came to naught. This is a real attempt to shift the balance away from socially motivated projects to economically motivated projects in an attempt to bring back real wealth to Liverpool, and not just community enterprises.

Mr. Oakes

The hon. Gentleman is saying that Conservative and Labour Governments have failed Liverpool and I agree with him. The order is regarded as a desperate last fling. If it fails there will be utter despondency in the Merseyside area. If nothing results there will be bleak despair in the area.

The Minister hopes that a small staff will be involved and that the corporation will buy in from local industry and local authorities. How many staff does he envisage will work for the corporation? How much work will be put out to Liverpool Merseyside, Sefton and other authorities?

My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale made an acute intervention about the Mersey Docks and Harbours Company. The Government have run into some difficulties with the London order because of its hybridity. Some discussions have been necessary in another place. Hybridity is involved in the order that we are discussing. Let us suppose that a compulsory purchase order is made, not under this order but under the planning order, by the development corporation. That could be subject to the doctrine of hybridity and have to go to the House of Lords. I do not state that that is so but I ask whether it is so. If it is, I can envisage endless delays and problems. The derelict docklands will remain derelict until it is sorted out.

Many of my hon. Friends from Liverpool constituencies wish to speak. We shall not vote against the order. We look at it quizzically but we welcome any money that will flow to Merseyside, which so desperately needs national financing.

10.33 pm
Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

I welcome the general intent of the order. I have some reservations, and I wish to ask a number of questions. I am sure that the Minister will not be able to answer them all immediately. I shall be happy to receive a written reply, which I shall circulate to my colleagues and other interested persons.

I have believed for some time that Merseyside needs a development agency of some type. I do not join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) in his condemnation of precious attempts. The inner city partnership is producing some results. They have taken time to work through. There were difficulties about coordination and co-operation but they have been resolved. The benefits are beginning to accrue.

I share the apprehension of my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) about the competing organisations in the 20-mile radius and the setting up of an enterprise zone. They compete for the finances. There is even more apprehension since the Budget.

I wish to ask several questions. I shall try to be as much to the point as possible.

I was grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene in his speech. It appears from what he said that under section 134 the Secretary of State has assumed that in land designation the development corporation will be able to take land that he considers to be already in public ownership. No doubt that was based on the fact that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company owns about 75 per cent. of the land designated on the maps. It owns land on both sides of the river, and going from north to south on the Liverpool and Sefton side of the Mersey. The land goes away from the docklands in the south to what was once oil tanks and an oil jetty at Dingle. It then goes to Otterspool promenade, to land that was once used for open recreation and is now parkland. Therefore, a number of side issues are associated with what the development is attempting to do.

Although the Government are a major shareholder in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company they have no more rights than any other stockholder or shareholder. To that degree-I am not being hypocritical or over-critical on this matter—the assumption is based on less than fact. I hope that the Minister will give the matter proper and due consideration.

If the land designation is not generally in public ownership, how will it be brought to the ownership of the new corporation? Will powers be vested in its four compulsory purchase orders? Will the local authorities be asked to act as agents in order to acquire the necessary land? What would be the consequences if that were so? I am considering only the land that belongs to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. By an Act, a moratorium and agreements across the Floor of the House there is a designation for what should happen to any moneys realised on the sale of land. We resisted that at the time. That would immediately go to the stockholders. Nothing would accrue to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. It could not use that money for extra capital development or for the extension of some of the facilities in the other portion of the docks. It could not even contribute to the investment for anything that might be created as a facility within the land that originally belonged to it. That needs careful thought. I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to consider that matter more carefully, because it is based on a false assumption.

At first glance, the sale might please the stockholders. Some of them might jump for joy at the thought that all the south docklands will be sold and will think that large sums of money will accrue to them. But how is the valuation of that land to be judged? What are the criteria for the valuation of derelict dockland? This dockland is different from any other.

In the south docklands, the silt from Canning to Herculaneum dock is high in intensity, and is heavily contaminated and polluted. From Queen's dock to Toxteth dock it is a hazard to health. How will the silt be cleared away to stop the hazard to health and the danger to those who work in the area?

If we followed some of the suggestions made by the brilliance of those who turn their minds to it we should leave water there, but with the silt underneath. That would not remove the hazard; it would only increase it. As time goes on it would become worse. That contamination must be dealt with. There will be major difficulty dredging the dock and putting the silt on land, or dumping it at sea. It will take a major operation to do so. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will cost much more than £16 million. I speak with some knowlege of dredging and the port.

Even if that difficulty were to be overcome with the resources that were made available, there remains the problem of re-establishing the dock walls and the infill. That will take time and major resources. My estimate, off the top of my head, is that the infill would cost over £250 million. If that is doubted, one has only to take the measurement of what has already happened in Herculaneum dock, with the infill of rubble, and what is happening in the rest of the dock.

A large water mass must be dealt with. When silt and water are taken away the pinion, the toe and the heel of the dock walls become suspect for collapse. Many problems have yet to be resolved in the designation of the land. I could speak about that point for two or three hours by delving into the technical details. I shall resist that temptation. I shall write to the Minister about some of the other important points.

Having dealt with the allocation of resources and the method by which the redevelopment will take place, I should like to know who will control, organise and finance it. Will it he a partnership between commerce, industry and the corporation? I cannot envisage that. There will be no investment in the land until it is ready for development, which means after the infill has taken place and after having dealt with all the dock buildings that are rapidly deteriorating throughout the dock systems.

I could talk about the Wallasey dock. I could refer to the other side of the Alfred dock, which is in exactly the same position as the Wallasey dock. There are about three or four feet of silt and a larger water mass. It is not contaminated, but is still creates problems. There is little difficulty about the Dingle area, except in terms of knowing what can be done with the sunken tanks that used to contain oil. There is a multiplicity of complexities that must be faced in the designation of that land. Again, I shall write to the Minister about the details.

I turn to the method of appointing members to the board. I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes in saying that it should be composed of people who come from Merseyside and understand the area. I ask the Minister to think again.

Unlike my right hon. Friend, I am glad that he did not name the 11 members. If he had, he would not be able to agree to my request. I ask him to reconsider the composition of the board. There should be a more equal balance of those nominated from the local authorities—Wirral, Sefton, the Merseyside county council and the Liverpool city council. I ask for six of the 11 places. That would leave him five plus the chairman, the deputy chairman and—I hesitate to say it—the chief executive officer. Most unusually, the chief executive officer has been appointed by the Secretary of State. He hired him. Who is the one that will fire him if he cannot do his job, or if he fails to meet the challenge?

Having dealt with the composition of the board, how can we resolve the problem of the planning authority's relationship with neighbouring authorities that possess the planning power? We already have one authority in Liverpool, and there is the Merseyside county council, of which I have personal knowledge. There are four if Sefton, and Wirral and Wallasey are included. They cannot agree now. If absolute power is given to a corporation that has no need other than to consider the commercial development of the land there will always be conflict.

There have been recommendations about high-rise developments on the River Thames. God knows what will happen on the Mersey after the infill has been carried out and the land is ready for development. I once more ask the Minister to reconsider the composition of the board to give a further balance to the nominations from the local authorities to deal with the conflict of identity and operation between one planning authority and another.

How will the new corporation, under the terms of its constitution, prepare a code of practice? How will it cooperate with the subscribing geographical local authorities? What will be the sharing of the power at the end of the day? How will the powers be exercised? Will the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company be considered a relevant local authority? Any development that takes place inside the docks, especially the South docks, can affect the flow of the river, with consequential difficulties of shifting masses of sand and sandbank. The navigation of the river is put in jeopardy. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company will have to consider those matters.

I believe that much more thought has yet to be given to the order. In the short time that has been available I am sorry that we have not been able to go into all the aspects of the order. I am grateful for the opportunity that the Minister has given us. I share with my right hon. Friend appreciation for the detail that the Minister gave. But I know from the heart, with my knowledge and experience, that it will not be that easy. At the end of the day we want to see this succeed and work. If it does not work our. constituents will suffer badly.

There is a crisis of unemployment on Merseyside. We need help. We need something tangible tomorrow, if we can have it. I do not want to see delay but equally I do not want to see such a mess that we shall not be able to raise ourselves out of it. I ask the Minister to think again, for God's sake.

10.45 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Wavertree)

One is always impressed when one hears the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) speak with such local knowledge and skill, but the problems that he has outlined merely make one realise that "hope springs eternal". Liverpool has been the victim of more action research, community development, urban deprivation experiments, neighbourhood projects, quality of life studies. comprehensive community programmes and partnerships, with more public money spent, than any other city in Europe. One must realise that the time has come to halt the drift of those social, educational and community experiments and develop a new thrust and a new approach.

The urban development corporation comes at the end of a long line of distinguished and, I regret to say, unsuccessful projects designed to turn about the ailing fortunes of the city. The urban development corporation, we are told, is something different. On the face of it, it may well be. Along with the enterprise zone, it is designed to bring economic recovery to the city. The spotlight has turned from eliminating pockets of deprivation and reorganising local authority expenditure to economic recovery—and so it should be.

The House must welcome the urban development corporation, even though some hon. Members are, correctly, cautiously optimistic and others are cynically optimistic. There have been problems about the exact location and understandable difficulties with the docks and harbour company over the land. But the idea that something should be done about the acres of derelict and vacant land on the waterfront must be correct.

The key to the success will not be the amount of Government money that the Minister can offer. We know that Government intervention has done a lot of harm on Merseyside. It has driven out private enterprise rather effectively. Special development area status accorded to the region has let firms build new businesses on industrial parks not in the inner area but on green field sites on the edges. In fact, that has shifted 100,000 jobs from the inner to the outer area.

The massive demolition programmes of the public authorities demolished 21,500 dwellings between 1966 and 1976 and nearly 500 small firms have been displaced in the past six years. Thus, more public intervention and more public money will not solve the problems of Liverpool. On the contrary, they may make matters worse.

The key to the success of the urban development corporation and the regeneration of Liverpool is the extent and level of private enterprise and private investment that will be attracted. If public funds are to be used merely for the infrastructure development for the land bank, that is a good start, but it is not enough. What incentive will there be to bring firms to the urban development corporation? Will the corporation be simply an inner city industrial park? Does the Minister hope that it will halt the continued development outwards on green field sites? It is a pity that the enterprise zone does not cover the same area as the urban development corporation, for that would provide a double incentive. It would provide land prepared, and ready for development, but there would also be an incentive for private enterprise and new businesses to settle there.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is a tremendous amount of noise in the gallery behind, I wonder whether it could be reduced.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and I have not heard any noise.

Mr. Steen

I am grateful to you Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was becoming a Tower of Babel, but it probably did not catch your ear from behind.

As I was saying, what we have got is the urban development corporation preparing public land so that it is suitable for development but not offering incentives for those who come there. In another part of the city we have an enterprise zone, which has been declared in the very area in which manufacturing enterprises have failed and where derelict and moribund factories stand as a monument to industrial failure. So the urban development corporation has advantages, in that the infrastructure will be provided from public funds but no tax inducement will be given to the businesses that settle there, whereas the enterprise zone will have no infrastructure grants but will have tax inducements for those that decide to settle and get business done there.

But from where will the work force for the urban development corporation area come? The enterprise zone is outside the inner city and many people live around that enterprise zone on the vast public council estates which were built there after the war. But what about the urban development corporation area in the centre of the city on the waterfront? Twenty-two per cent. of the inner city population left Liverpool between 1966 and 1976. With the present cost of petrol, transport and parking in the inner area, which is now so enormous, will there be an incentive for the work force who live in the outer areas to come back to the inner areas? They will certainly not be able to live there, because most of the homes have been demolished. Whereas in the enterprise zones employers can offer higher wages because they have no rates to pay, in the urban development corporation area the employers will still have to pay the full level of rates. Already businesses in the inner city have left because of the high level of rates. Why should they return to operate in the area of the urban development corporation?

Surely it is a better idea for our big clearing banks, instead of having their windfall profits taxed, to be encouraged to express some measure of social responsibility in this country by spending some of their profits on this urban revitalisation. The banks have increasingly become the enemies of our cities. The four clearing banks have an antipathy to investing in the older industrial areas. Surely they have made enough money in areas such as Liverpool, and surely some of that money should be reinvested in the area in which they have made the money. The American banks have recognised that it is not charitable but good commercial sense to invest in the older ailing areas.

Without new money and new investments, the urban development corporation will just not realise its full potential. If the Minister is concerned about the level of private enterprise in the urban development corporation, I take it that he will ensure that the 50 or so small, private one-man firms, already clustered in the man-made caves in the South docks are not displaced. They do not want to be moved to advance factories, with all the commercial trappings. They simply want cheap accommodation where they can start an embryo business and pay £5 or £10 a week rent and rates. Will the urban development corporation provide accommodation for that kind of business, and at a price that it can afford? Will the urban development corporation have the money not just to develop land but to help to build on it?

Success in Liverpool has always been amongst the small entrepreneurs. The danger of the urban development corporation is that it will stifle the small business men and drive them further away from the city. Will the urban development corporation of today be the enterprise zone of tomorrow, with abandoned factories cluttering the land, witnessing an era when public money tempted big business to come North, only to abandon the sites when the economic recession hit it?

We do not want the urban development corporation to be another in the very long line of urban initiatives. We hope that it will be something different, but whether it will work and to what extent will depend on the value for money offered to private business, the level of rates the local authority charges, and the attitude of the financial institutions, banks and insurance companies towards lending money and taking real risks.

The present Government partnership is a contradiction in terms, because the partners are all in the public sector. The urban development corporation must be a genuine partnership. That means joint enterprise, joint resources and joint responsibilities. The Government must finally show that they are prepared to trust and work with the private sector as equals fighting the same battle.

Let us give the urban development corporation a chance and let us hope that it succeeds.

10.55 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

When the concept of an urban development corporation was proposed in the Local Government, Land and Planning Bill, it was generally welcomed by those who represent or live in constituencies in Merseyside, whereas the proposals for an urban development corporation in London's Docklands have been greeted with hostility.

Hon. Members representing Merseyside constituencies and others welcomed the proposals because, unlike our London counterparts, we felt that the local authorities involved might not be able to deal with the job adequately. My right hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) paid tribute to the efforts made by local government to revitalise docklands and to deal with the problems involved. However, the situations in Merseyside and London are different. For example, all the local authorities in Merseyside are either Conservative- or Liberal-Conservative-controlled. Over the years, the local authorities do not seem to have shown the drive, initiative and energy of the London local authorities in the revitalisations of docklands.

Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), I am worried that when the board of the Merseyside development corporation is constituted no one will represent the areas that are being designated. Each local authority is nominating a member. The Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral local authorities and the county council will nominate a member. With the exception of Liverpool, which may choose a Liberal, the authorities will choose Conservative representatives. In the end, there will not be any Labour local authority representatives on the Merseyside development corporation. But all the areas concerned and the surrounding areas elect Labour representatives to Parliament and to the local authorities. I hope that the Minister will give that matter serious consideration and rectify the mistake.

The local authorities have often dealt with the problems in an incompetent manner. They have certainly been Scrooge-like in their attitude to providing public services and money for the infrastructure needed to attract industry to the area. I speak with some knowledge, particularly of Sefton council. It is one of the lowest-rated metropolitan districts in the country. It has done very little to meet the needs of the area. Indeed, it admits as much in some of its reports.

The boundaries of the urban development corporation area in the constituency of Bootle cover what is know as the "maritime area" in the plans and proposals of Sefton council. Only last year, in its report on employment in industry, the metropolitan borough of Sefton stated that the development of the maritime area had not been as extensive as had been envisaged. It said that it still contained a mixture of uses and the largest resource of potential industrial land in the plan area that was still unused. That area was going to be developed for uses subsidiary to those of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, but that has not happened.

Having welcomed the concept of the Merseyside development corporation, one of the things which leads myself and others now to be a little sceptical is the way in which the Minister has gone about setting it up and the very slender resources that are actually to be allocated for the corporation.

If we compare the £16 million which is being allocated for areas throughout Merseyside with the £19 million which has been knocked off Sefton council's rate support grant alone, we see how little this is, and it seems that this is just a palliative—that a lot of window-dressing is taking place and that no real action will follow.

In an intervention in the Minister's speech I referred to the problems of the Rimrose housing estate, in my constituency, within the area that is being designated. That estate is surrounded by industrial land and other industry. It is across on the port side of a busy main road. It has no facilities and has been neglected for a considerable number of years. It seems that between them the local authority, the county council and the shadow urban development corporation that has been in existence for some months now have been practising a major exercise in closed government, not telling the residents of the area what their thinking is about the future of that estate.

There are proposals that have been in existence for some time in the Sefton planning department for the demolition of that estate and the rehousing of the people elsewhere because it has always been considered to be in a bad situation and in an area that should be concerned with industrial uses.

Now, with £16 million for the whole of the Merseyside development corporation, I believe—although I am not certain of the figure—that about £6 million will have to be spent on the purchase of land from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. In fact, in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's document "The Profitability Study, 1980", which the Government required the company to produce, the statement is made under section 353: This section has been omitted as it deals with specific areas of the company's properties which are the subject of current negotiations with the urban development corporation. So it is still not very clear exactly what is happening, but rumour has it that £6 million at least of the £16 million is to be spent on purchasing land from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale said, that will be distributed to stockholders or shareholders and cannot be spent on capital investment in the docks to create more employment. So that is not going to be any help whatsoever.

That leaves at the most £10 million, and it would take almost that to deal with the Rimrose estate problem itself. So the urban development corporation sees no future for that estate and we would like some kind of intervention from the Minister to make sure that at least the residents of the estate know what their future is. The worst thing for the residents is not knowing whether the estate is to be demolished and they are to be rehoused, or whether it is to remain. Certainly if it is to remain we want to know what kind of life it is to have so that some money can be spent on it, it can be improved, and life can be made tolerable and bearable for those who remain there.

I hope that the Minister will address himself to that question and explain to me and my constituents, who are very concerned about this matter, exactly what powers he has given in this order to the urban development corporation as far as housing is concerned, and whether he has any knowledge of the discussions that are going on between the UDC and Sefton council. In its own report the Sefton metropolitan district council, referring to the Rimrose estate, said: This matter is currently under consideration by the Department of the Environment and the committee"— that is, the policy committee or the housing committee of the Sefton council— will be kept informed of any development. That report was dated 4 November 1980, so I hope that if it is accurate it will allow the Minister to tell us exactly what the Department of the Environment has been discussing about that estate, so that the people of the area will know at last exactly what is going to happen to them in the future.

One of the problems with the Merseyside development corporation has been highlighted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen)—that the enterprise zone is being set up in a green field site. That enterprise zone, I assure the Minister, will not create any more new jobs in Merseyside. During the summer recess, I went round a number of firms, bonded warehouses and other warehousing factories, and all the owners told me that when the enterprise zone was set up they would move from dockland to the zone. Our major expense is rates. We shall not be able to compete with any bonded warehouses set up in the enterprise zone, so we shall move there so that we can compete. Jobs will therefore actually move from the inner city docklands area. Warehousing and bonded warehousing will move to the enterprise zone. That will not assist the development corporation's activities at all.

In addition, particularly in the maritime area designated in my constituency, the jobs envisaged for the future are related to the activities of the port. Most of the jobs that have been created in the past and are developing in that area relate to the activities of the port. The port is in decline. The Government refuse to assist the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company with investment. They will assist it only to buy off jobs and reduce the amount of activity in the docks by paying £16,000 to every docker who leaves. Unless the Government do something to revitalise the docks and to assist the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company far more than is at present proposed the development corporation will have its hands tied and will be unable to develop in the way that the Minister envisaged in his statement.

A further recent development will affect these areas considerably. The Secretary of State for Industry and his ministerial colleagues have altered the way in which grants are given to firms in a development area. A well-known firm of dock chandlers, which has now developed its activities into making equipment for containerisation, has told me that it can no longer obtain grants to expand its activities in Merseyside because the Department of Industry will give grants only for the establishment of new industries and not for the expansion of existing industries. Unless something is done about that there will not be much room for development by the corporation.

I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Wavertree, who asserted that the development corporation will succeed through a partnership with private enterprise and incentives to private enterprise. History has proved that that is the way in which Merseyside has been let down. From 1964 onwards, from the time when the Wilson Government came to power and subsequently through the period of the Heath Government, billions of pounds of public money were poured into Merseyside, not into public enterprise but to encourage private enterprise and private capital to invest in Merseyside. That has not worked.

Indeed, we are now witnessing a reversal of the situation, in which private capital is leaving Merseyside. Private firms are closing down and there is less and less private sector investment. One has only to consider the list of firms that have closed down—Tate and Lyle, Courtaulds, Bowaters, and small companies as well. Companies that had Government assistance to establish themselves in Merseyside are now getting out. So the idea that private enterprise will solve our problems is hardly a convincing one.

We hoped that the development corporation would bring a big injection of public money, public expenditure and public activities in the docklands to set Merseyside on the right course. We hoped that it would be able to create jobs and activity, to save the docks, to create a new environment, to create new jobs and to create wealth by public enterprise. With £16 million and further cuts in public expenditure promised by the Treasury, I do not believe that the future is as rosy as all that. Nevertheless, I hope that the Merseyside development corporation will work, because it is a concept that I welcomed in the beginning and still welcome as a concept.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understand that the Minister would like to begin to answer the debate at about 11.20 pm. I should like to be able to call the three hon. Members who have risen in their places.

11.9 pm

Mr. Eric S. Heller (Liverpool, Walton)

I shall be about three minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Labour Government discussed urban development I suggested that there should be an urban development corporation in Liverpool. I therefore naturally welcomed this development. I believed then that we ought to have a body that could cut through red tape and speedily get down to tackling the problems, particularly those of the South docks.

I worked on the South docks for many years, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). Anyone who knows those docks knows that the area is not quite the same as the rest of Merseyside. It is a special area, which needs special treatment.

If I have any criticisms, it is that the money being made available to the corporation is insufficient. It would be wrong if once the corporation has got off the ground and begins to deal with the problems—as I think it will—it finds that it has run out of money because private investment is not forthcoming.

While public money is to be used as a catalyst for private investment, the danger is that we shall not get that investment. Therefore, it would be wrong if the corporation were starved of the necessary money.

The corporation's first statement talked about revitalising the heart of Liverpool. That is essential. I hope that there will be new housing in the area, as part of all the other work. It must be mixed housing. Do not let us have any more ghettos of one kind or the other. We must not miss this opportunity. I should like to see a Liverpool "Pimlico", where rich and poor live cheek by jowl. I want to see that sort of development. I want to see many other developments in that area.

There is a problem about small existing companies. However, had the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) read the document issued by the corporation he would know that it proposes to cater precisely for those companies. It does not intend to do what happened in the Islington area of Liverpool, where the small businesses were wiped out.

I welcome this corporation. I know that many local councillors got uptight about it. Sir. Kenneth Thompson is an old friend of mine. He is also an antagonist, in the sense that we fought each other at the hustings. Luckily, I won. He was very much against this idea. Many councillors have changed their minds. Some were for it originally and are now against it. Others were against it but are now in favour of it. Sir Kenneth was against it until he was made deputy chairman, and then he was for it.

I welcome the corporation. It is essential. There has been far too much negative talk this evening. I do not like that. The corporation is something that Merseyside should welcome. Whatever we may feel about the composition of the board and whether it should have more elected representatives— I believe that it should— we should acknowledge that this is a welcome development. However, I ask the Government to make more money available in order to make it a success.

11.14 pm
Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxteth)

The largest of the three designated areas covers the waterfront of my constituency. Twenty-five years ago it was a hive of industry. Some of my hon. Friends worked in the area. Now I doubt whether more than two or three dozen people are employed along the whole length of those docks.

I was heartened by what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said. It brought a note of realism into the debate. We should not be pessimistic about what can happen in Liverpool. I like to believe that the Government intend to make a go of this. The only thing that can stop it getting oft the ground is too many people looking to their own empires. A development corporation is the only body that can concentrate sufficiently on the problems of a small area to make the plans work. I hope that the Liverpool corporation and other authorities involved will work towards that end.

The hon. Member for Wavertree asks where the workers will come from. My constituency, within a stone's throw of the development in the South docks, can provide 5,000 or 10,000 people who are out of work.

I am sad about the amount of money allocated, although we hear that there may be more. I take that in good faith. I hope that the Government will not let down the people of Merseyside. They have been let down often after their hopes have been raised. Past promises have been made in good faith, but have not helped the people of Merseyside. I hope that the Government will make every effort to make the development corporation work.

I have had a bee in my bonnet ever since the development of the docks was first mentioned. In the centre of Liverpool we have wonderful docks, with probably one of the best landing stages in the country. Two miles further up the river is Otterspool, with a wonderful frontage and green lawns. In between, we have devastation. The development between the two areas will settle the fate of Liverpool for the next 100 or 150 years. It will be a crime if we do not make the whole stretch as attractive as it is at Otterspool. We can have a mixture of housing and industry, but I should like the front at Liverpool joined up with Otterspool, with a promenade on which the people of Liverpool and Toxteth can take daily walks.

I welcome the proposal, and wish it every success.

11.17 pm
Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

Like the speeches of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), my speech will be a truncated version of what was intended to be a brilliant and devastating resume of the development corporation and all that it may or may not be. The Minister will be able to speak well before 11.20 pm.

My approach to the development corporation is rather like the approach of the man from Missouri—prove it; show me. It is partly that of the optimistic pessimism of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen)—although I deplore his attacks on the banks. It is not my role, from the Labour Benches, to defend the banking system, but from my personal knowledge of the regional directors of more than one bank on Merseyside I can say that the banks are pouring a great deal of money from their coffers into Merseyside. The case for not having a levy on banks is made on Merseyside. They are not calling in overdrafts, and are supporting small companies.

The development corporation approach is not what we asked the Labour Government for; we wanted a Merseyside development agency. We do not all trust every local corporation or city council. The officers are different. The debt owed to the city of Liverpool's senior officers and chief executives should be placed on record, but now is not the time. We do not particularly trust city councillors as representatives. I would not put some in charge of a fish and chip shop, let alone give them seats on the board of the development corporation.

Nevertheless, the task of the development corporation should have the support of every hon. Member representing Merseyside and every outside representative. It has a good chairman-designate, who has considerable contacts outside Merseyside—the old fox whom my hon. Friend the Member for Walton once defeated but who has never held a grudge—Sir Kenneth Thompson. He has political contacts and a great deal of expertise. He has a good potential team. I wish that we had had more advertising for staff locally, but that is a small point. Will the corporation need 52 members of staff? Will it try to recruit them locally? Merseyside and its need have a special quality, which would take an incomer time to understand.

If £16 ½ million is to be provided and if most of the land is in the control of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, there is at this stage no incentive for the company to dispose permanently of any land. None of the revenue from the sale of the land would come to the company in the form of everyday working capital; it would go to the bondholders. The right hon. Gentleman should be talking to the Secretary of State for Transport to see whether arrangements can be made to deal with the settlement imposed by the previous Conservative Administration, who permitted a policy of non-intervention, so enabling the company to dispose of some land profitably.

Will the Minister encourage the development corporation to look at commercial and service industries? That is the hope of Merseyside. Will he wish the corporation well in its efforts? Is he trying to tell hon. Members that if we make sufficient fuss we shall get more money? If that is offered tonight, it will save a great deal of time.

11.21 pm
Mr. King

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to a number of points that have been raised. I should like to express my gratitude for what I thought was the much more positive response in the latter part of the debate to the proposal that I have put before the House. I should like to deal with a number of detailed points. On those that I do not cover, I shall write to hon. Members.

The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) raised the question of a relative share of resources. If one takes the acreage involved in the Docklands UDC and that involved in the Merseyside UDC, one sees that Merseyside gets a rather larger share of the provision proposed at present. That is not, however, a particularly valid observation and I shall say more about resources at the end of my remarks. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the proposal was not like a proposal for a new town, and drew attention to the fact that odd pieces are selected. This is the nature of the problem. It is a different exercise. It seeks to take the new town approach into an old town. One does not get the perfect green field development. There is the problem of dealing with different bits that have decayed more rapidly than others.

A number of hon. Members raised the question of membership of the UDC. I hope that we shall be able to take account of local representation. It would be a pointless exercise to seek to appoint people from miles away who commanded no local confidence. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) was kind enough to pay tribute to our choice of chairman, while the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred in affectionate, if conquering, terms to the deputy chairman. We believe that this is a sensible approach.

Mr. Heffer

I said that I was lucky.

Mr. King

I accept that. We shall seek to ensure that the board is strong and respected. In regard to staff, it is important to get the skills and experience needed for certain specialist jobs. Otherwise, so far as possible, local staff will be appointed.

The right hon. Member for Widnes asked me one of those worrying technical questions, which for a moment caused me apprehension until I thought about it, relating to CPOs and whether any individual CPO would be hybrid. In my judgment, the answer is "No". I am fortified in making that response by advice from the official box that suggests that I am correct. That makes two against one, which may be a winning combination.

The hon. Member for Walton, referred to the need for what he called a "Liverpool Pimlico"—an evocative phrase. I am sure that the approach to mixed housing is right. The need to avoid a concentration of one form of development is important. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) referred to the position of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. It is a statutory company, but for the purpose of vesting it is in the public sector. The hon. Member for West Derby suggested that we should talk to the Secretary of State for Transport. Talks with my right hon. Friend have already taken place. The talks are proceeding well with the company. It has responsibilities to its stockholders.

Mr. Ogden

rose—

Mr. King

I shall not give way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to write me. There are a number of questions to which I must respond before the debate is closed.

We are optimistic that it will be possible to make satisfactory arrangements with the company, which is co-operating well in the initial discussions with the shadow members of the corporation. The members of the MDHC recognise that it is crucial that adequate land be obtained if the development corporation is to proceed.

There are problems with valuation. The relevant provisions are set out in the Act and the issue will be dealt with under the compensation code in the Act. That is the responsibility of the district valuer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) suggested that we should have enterprise zones coterminous with the UDC. The point of the exercise is to try two different approaches. My hon. Friend rightly contrasted the difference between one and the other. I am pleased to be able to say that both approaches will be tried in the area.

With respect to my hon. Friend, I am much more in sympathy with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) on the issue of finding the work force. The least of the problems in Liverpool at present is the location of the work force. I feel that it will be readily available. We shall seek to give every encouragement to the tenants in the sites that now exist.

I cannot add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) about the estate in respect of which he expressed concern. The development corporation is conscious of the problem and we shall do what we can. The corporation will be anxious to ensure that the estate is not disadvantaged. It has been a problem for the Sefton council and I am aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred. These are problems that will have to be considered.

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the enterprise zones. He claims that there will be no new jobs, but merely immediate transfers. I had to face that criticism when I piloted the Bill through the House. There is some risk that there will be a transfer of jobs, but I contend that the enterprise zones will stimulate new jobs. I was pleased last week to issue the official invitation to Sir Trevor Jones, the leader of the Liverpool city council, for the enterprise zone scheme to be set up.

A number of hon. Members referred to £16 million as if it were a lump sum contribution. In fact, it is only the sum for this year. A further contribution will follow in subsequent years.

Mr. Ogden

If it is used.

Mr. King

During my contribution and other contributions I was aware of certain elements of the volcano about the hon. Member for Walton. I was encouraged by his remarks. It is easy to indulge in too much negative talk. Of course, there are problems. I offer the House no guarantee that the corporation will work. A long series of initiatives, including regional policies and industrial incentives, have failed for different reasons. The hon. Gentleman is not alone in suggesting that we need the single-minded approach of a development corporation to tackle some of the most intractable problems that we face.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree has been staunch in his support for the private sector. We believe, as the hon. Member for Toxteth said, that Liverpool and Merseyside can rise again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1980 a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 November be approved.