HL Deb 19 July 1967 vol 285 cc249-51

2.26 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for ensuring that the work of the Location of Offices Bureau in moving firms out of London is not impeded by the activities of Government Departments and of local authorities; and whether they will make a statement.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)

My Lords, when the present Government took office in 1964, there was a large amount of unused office space. In order to conserve national resources and also to restrain the congestion in the Metropolitan area, the Government introduced a stringent control on the creation of new office space. As the amount of empty office space has been reduced, it has now become possible to relax the restrictions to a limited extent. These relaxations were the subject of a Statement by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place yesterday. He then said that he intends to raise from 3,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. the exemption limit for office development permits outside the Metropolitan region. He will also pay closer regard to considerations of physical planning and the efficient use of labour put forward by those office employers who are unable to move from the South-East and who wish to build offices. Other than general building controls there is no restriction on the building of offices outside the Midlands and South-East England. Even these general controls do not apply to the development areas. Government Departments and local authorities have no priority in the building or acquisition of office space.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that full and long Answer, for which I am grateful, may I ask him whether he has seen the recent statement by the chairman of the Bureau, that their work had been very greatly handicapped and discouraged by the credit squeeze and the restriction on office areas? Do the Government not feel that the intolerable imbalance which is increasing as between London and the rest of the country needs rather more vigorous measures than those taken so far?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, it was precisely because I had seen the statement to which the noble Earl refers that my Answer was somewhat longer than I usually like to give, in an attempt to answer some of the points which I thought were implicit in the noble Earl's Question. The problem is largely due to the fact that many of the people who wish to have office space, and are being encouraged to move out, do not want to move far enough: they still wish to remain within the South-East area. Those people undoubtedly find difficulties, because it would not be consistent with the overall development plans if they simply moved from the Metropolitan area a few miles outside the boundary. The encouragement and help we wish to give is primarily to those people who are willing to move to areas other than the Midlands or the South-East.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a great deal of benefit can be obtained by encouraging firms to move out of London to the other side of the Green Belt area, and that it might well be better to accept "half a loaf" rather than to get none at all? Because unless firms can move out to that sort of region, for office purposes rather than for industrial purposes, they are unlikely to go beyond the South-Eastern region. Will the noble Lord please bear this in mind in looking at this development policy?

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I shall certainly bear it in mind, but the noble Lord has raised questions of wide importance to the whole problem of regional planning and development.