HL Deb 22 July 1971 vol 322 cc1267-78

11.5 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what policy they have to secure continued and balanced growth of towns which have agreed development plans to accommodate"overspill"from the Greater London area. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I greatly appreciate that any noble Lord should remain to this late hour while I put the Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name. I should not dare to presume on your Lordships but for the fact that I have already postponed this Question once, and I am very conscious that there are a great many people in various parts of the country who are anxious that it should be put, not because the Question itself is important but because they are extremely interested in the reply that Her Majesty's Government give.

The policy of transferring some of London's"overspill"population to towns where new growth was desirable was started by the London County Council, on which the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, served with such distinction; and I have to say that the noble Lord greatly regrets that another very important engagement prevents his being present tonight, because he had hoped that he might be able to take part in the discussion. It was an imaginative policy, and the achievement that has followed its adoption has been impressive. The co-operation between local authorities and the L.C.C. (now, of course, the Greater London Council) has provided for the transfer of families to new homes with jobs—jobs which have also been transferred to these areas of new expansion. It has meant new growth in these districts and new life for the people; and a more purposeful future for the people and for the districts. The receiving areas have needed to provide not only sites for houses and factories, but also essential services: schools, clinics and, if the community is to be happy, amenity services as well, recreational and cultural.

I think I am right in saying that over 30 schemes have been undertaken, extending to places as far apart as Andover, Basingstoke, Bodmin, Luton, Swindon, Wellingborough and Witham; and they have varied in size from a few hundred families to 10,000 or 11,000 families. Several of these areas of new expansion catering for overspill have been located in East Anglia, and I shall mention just a few of them a little later. In particular, I should like to mention Haverhill, which I know fairly well and about which I have asked a number of Questions on previous occasions. Haverhill may not be typical in all respects, but it certainly highlights problems which exist elsewhere, varying somewhat according to the size of the expansion scheme. There has been pretty steady expansion in Haverhill since development started, as indeed is the case at most of the other places, and I think it began with the Town Development Act 1952.

Take Haverhill. There, London, the West Suffolk County Council and the Haverhill Urban District Council have carried through expansion from a point of some 4,000 population to a population which, at the present time, is about 12,000 and, it is hoped, will ultimately reach something like 30,000. Services such as clinics, schools, sewerage, playing fields, sports centres and others have been planned on the basis of a population of approximately that size. But growth is not now proceeding in a steady and balanced way. There are in Haverhill at least 500 newly-built houses, built to Parker Morris standards, standing empty; and some of them—far too many of them—have been empty for at least 18 months. The fact of these empty houses in the face of the national housing shortage is, I venture to suggest, nothing short of a tragedy. Some people are saying that it is beginning to approach something of a scandal.

There are, moreover, additional houses in the pipeline. It is true that fairly recently, I think in March, it was decided that new tenders will not be invited for further house construction unless the situation improves, unless more factories, more industries, more businesses, are transferred. But if all expectations, as I understand them, so far as the transfer of industries and business are concerned, are reached, the prospect is that without any additional new building being started there will still be 117 houses standing empty at the end of 1972. In the light of this situation, it would seem to me, and probably to most noble Lords, sensible to call a halt to house building there. But I can see grave danger that if this is done the local building force will be broken up and dispersed, and if and when new factories are wanted, there will be in the locality no efficient construction force existing and it will have to be re-created.

As at December 31, 1970, there were over 2,500 empty houses in these"overspill " areas—that is to say, in all of them. In East Anglia, Thetford had 450; Sudbury had 120; King's Lynn 230, and at that time Haverhill had over 400. These houses were built in expectation of continued and balanced growth. I think, therefore, that it is proper and timely that one should ask what has gone wrong. The most obvious answer is to blame the economic climate which has discouraged industrial growth and expansion. One wonders where there has been any lessening of pressure on the part of the Greater London Council, pressure to secure the transfer of businesses. If that question is asked, I ask it tonight only because there are people in the area who are now, and have been for some time past, questioning what is happening. Because in 1968 the Greater London Council, to deal with the situation, provided an estimate figure of £2,850,000, and they actually spent £1,427,000. In 1969, the estimate went up to £2,980,000, and actual expenditure was £2,694,000. In 1970, the figure of expenditure fell to £569,000. In 1971, whereas provision has been made for £1,100,000, I think the actual expenditure is likely to be in the region of £750,000. One rather anticipates that the estimate for 1972 may be lower.

But, my Lords, the situation that I have described is not peculiar to Haverhill. On June 8, in the"Nationwide"series, there was a television broadcast dealing with Sudbury. May I quote from a transcript of the broadcast what was said by Mr. Brian Ash: A brand-new housing estate in the town of Sudbury, in Suffolk. Two hundred and fifty-six homes with central heating, garages and all modern conveniences. Delightfully situated in this London overspill town in the heart of the Suffolk countryside. It's exactly the sort of place that badly-housed, or homeless families in London would dream of living in. In fact, the Greater London Council had these houses built specially, at a cost of more than £2 million to ease the pressure on jobs and homes in London. But somewhere along the line these plans have gone terribly wrong, because nine months after the first of these houses became available 193 of them are still standing empty. My Lords, I would quote at greater length but for the lateness of the hour; and what was said about Sudbury could be repeated about a number of other places in East Suffolk.

There are those who are saying that the time has come to look anew at the situation, to take stock; and they are suggesting that these schemes of expansion ought perhaps to be checked. I believe that these schemes for expansion must go on. To allow them to grind to a halt is to run the risk that the places concerned will return to diminishing populations and a position of slow decline. Instead of having well-planned centres of lively and healthy communities, we shall have unrealised ambitions, unfulfilled hopes. My Lords, too much has been invested to allow that to happen.

I want to ask: are the Government doing all they can to ensure steady and continuous development? Is everything possible being done to persuade firms who come forward, for instance, in the South East, interested in moving, but unwilling to go to the assisted areas? Is everything being done that could be done to persuade them to consider moving to expansion areas? Could more be done to encourage more offers of development there? One wonders why the Government decided recently to transfer a Government office to a place like Southend. Would not the office have been better transferred to East Anglia? Could industry be transferred, say, from Essex; and could workers be transferred from London to fill the positions in the factories? Are the Government satisfied that there is full liaison between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department responsible for housing, the Department of the Environment? I should have liked to dwell on that, but I put the point quite simply: ought there in East Anglia to be some real centre of growth, some really large centre of growth, some real new town development? Where it could be located is a matter for consideration, but I know that my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale was once of the opinion that Ipswich could very well have such a centre. I know that there are those who feel that perhaps Bury St. Edmunds could be built up to advantage.

Then, my Lords, there is the need to consider the future. When I go to Haverhill I see young people going to and coming from school, and having in mind the range of their abilities and their career expectation, I would ask that every effort be made to ensure, what I think is not happening at the present time, that there should be provided for them where they live a range of opportunities which match their talents and abilities. I doubt whether at the present time they exist in Haverhill; I doubt whether they exist in any of these places, expanded towns, as we call them, to-day. If we do not make provision for the young people, who will all too soon be leaving school, to obtain employment in the areas where they are now growing up, and if they have to leave those areas, then the future of those new expanding towns will as surely be threatened as was Haverhill in the days when it was a declining small town.

In these areas are homes, empty houses, attractive houses, capable of being attractive homes in healthy and pleasing surroundings. I asked earlier what has gone wrong. May I conclude by asking what the Government are doing to put matters right in these areas, where steady and balanced development is desirable and essential. I hope that we shall not be told:"Wait until the proposals that were outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week begin to take effect." Something more than that is needed, my Lords. The people responsible for government in these areas at local level are entitled to some indication that the Central Government are not only aware of the situation which confronts them but are in fact going to give them a great deal more support than many of them feel they have had in the past. May I end by repeating my sense of obligation to those who have been indulgent to listen at this late hour?

11.23 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, may be wondering why I am speaking and at this hour—and so am I. The reason is that I have been recently to Haverhill, in Suffolk, one of these"overspill"towns. I had wanted to see one for some time, and when my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy offered me the bait of a conducted tour, I went. My qualifications for speaking are that visit and that visit alone. I was most impressed by the amenities offered, and by the housing, especially with the market. For example, I saw some council houses, with rents of £5.06, with four bedrooms and central heating, in extremely attractive surroundings. But there are not enough jobs available in the area, and so literally hundreds of these houses are standing empty. I am not competent to judge the planning and economic factors involved in the total strategy, but in Haverhill there are these lovely houses empty, at a time of national housing shortage, and it seems to me an awful waste. Somehow, employment must be attracted there; otherwise, these houses will have been built for nothing, and otherwise, in the long run, the children of those who are already there will drift away to search for jobs which ought to be in Haverhill. How ridiculous it would be if this brave attempt to help to deal with London's overcrowding should end up by being a ghost town!

11.25 p.m.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, I should like to ask for your Lordships' indulgence for a brief moment. The Question that my noble friend has put before the House is one that is surely of great importance to the future of this country. We are concerned with the whole problem of development throughout the country, and here we have an area which has already been recognised as one in which development can take place and where money has already been spent. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this case is not unique, although it is important, and that there are areas throughout the whole country where, if we do not carry out development, we shall continue to build up in one congested area an excess population, and we shall fail to develop the full resources of the country. I come from another part of the country which also has great problems, and without Government help it will be impossible to get this development. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is to reply, will be able to give us some assurance that it is the policy of the Government to see that there is not an excessive congestion in one part of the country at the expense of us all.

11.27 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, the subject that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has raised is an important one. It relates to the overall planning problems of South-East England and to London's housing problem in particular, but the hour is late for an extensive debate upon it, and therefore I shall be fairly brief. A total of over 100,000 houses have been built in New Towns linked with London, and about 42,000 in expanding towns. For the future, we can look to substantial benefits to be gained from the development of Milton Keynes, Northampton and Peterborough (where over 90,000 houses are to be built), and there remain some 20,000 houses to be completed in other New Towns and some 45,000 in town development schemes in progress or approved. The Greater London Council are also considering the possibility of certain additional town development schemes by way of implementing the intention, which they have stated in the Greater London Development Plan, of exporting some 20,000 people a year to their expanding towns.

The situation which we now face in relation to London's"overspill"has in fact altered in one significant respect in recent years. Contrary to the earlier expectations of planners, we are witnessing a continued fall in London's population, a fall which owes more to spontaneous movements of people than to planned"overspill ". It is perhaps understandable that many who have noted this phenomenon have asked whether there is any longer a case for planned"overspill"from London.

My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, will before long announce the Government's conclusions on a long-term strategy for the South-East in the light of the regional study published last year. He is nevertheless convinced—as indeed are the G.L.C. themselves—that, quite apart from longer-term needs, a continuing and effective overspill"programme is necessary for London throughout the remainder of this decade. The fact is that, although London's population is falling, there remain conditions of serious housing need in the Inner London Boroughs, and the need for new dwellings will be continually added to year by year as more and more houses come to the end of their useful life. Even allowing for high rates of house building within London itself, there is no hope of meeting London's housing needs in the '70s without a continuing"overspill"programme.

It is against this background that I now turn to the particular problems facing us on individual town development schemes. It is essential that in the furtherance of this dynamic process of redistributing people and jobs we must establish viable and balanced communities. Where an existing town is being substantially expanded, the task of grafting the new on to the old is a highly skilled one, and the whole process of maintaining a balanced inflow of people and jobs is complex and difficult. At the present time, as has been pointed out, several town development schemes, mainly in East Anglia, are facing problems of empty houses: and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gainsworthy, has said, there is a particular problem at Haverhill, where at the last count there were over 442 empty houses. In any period of rapid expansion, towns taking"overspill"need a balance of empty houses as an attraction for industrialists, and there is nothing unusual in having a balance of up to 100 empty houses at any one time in any one place. However, in Haverhill and certain other towns the number of empty houses is currently very much larger than this, partly because of general investment trends and partly because of individual firms cutting their demands for houses.

The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has rightly laid some stress on the part which can be played by the Government in diverting new employment to expanding towns, and subject to the prior requirements of assisted areas—and nobody has disagreed with that side of the policy—it is the Government's policy to encourage the movement of industry to new and expanding towns when administering I.D.C. policies. But I must emphasise that we have to reckon with a general shortage of industry ready to move in relation to all the demands presented by regional economic policies, and we must continue to give general priority to those areas with substantial unemployment problems. The Government are accordingly prepared to consider the problems of Haverhill sympathetically in this respect, but it is not thought right to single the town out for the same priority treatment as an assisted area. We must therefore look to the general improvement of the economy as the basis for renewed growth and prosperity in expanding towns. The foundations for this improvement were laid earlier this year in the Budget, and more recently my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced further measures.

However, the need remains to take direct action on the current situation. The G.L.C. are already re-phasing their building programmes in towns with a surplus of empties and some of the surplus is being disposed of to meet local needs. Moreover, as my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, announced in a debate in another place on Thursday of last week, agreement has been reached with the G.L.C. on a number of measures designed to produce an early impact on the situation by relaxing the rules governing the occupation of empty houses which are surplus. First, it is proposed to allow occupation by any eligible Londoner (that is, any London local authority tenant, waiting list or I.S.S. registrant) who has obtained a job in an expanding town, regardless of whether he has obtained his job through the I.S.S. or his degree of housing need or skill. Secondly, it is proposed to allow occupation by any skilled Londoner who has found a job in a shortage trade. Thirdly, it is proposed, subject to the agreement of the local authorities, to grant tenancies to any retired person and any Londoner (with or without a job in the town in question) who already occupies a local authority dwelling in London. Fourthly, in addition, it is the intention to encourage more sales and to investigate the possibility of inviting housing associations to nominate a quota of people in housing need to particular expanding towns.

My Lords, we are confident that all these measures will help to redress the present situation and, in so doing, make a further contribution to relieving London's housing needs. So far as Haverhill is concerned, there is in any event a significant prospect of improvement. The G.L.C. expect that Sainsbury's will take up to 100 houses later this year, and that in the following year they will provide jobs for a further 170 workers. I appreciate that it may be necessary for some of these jobs to go to workers made redundant by Holpak, but there is a prospect that a firm will be found to take over Holpak's premises and that some, at least, of the workers will be re-employed there. I should prefer not to comment further on this at the present stage.

My Lords, from all that I have said, it is, I trust, clear that the Government's long-term policies are directed to securing a continuing balanced growth in towns taking"overspill"from London. While any programme of this comprehensive long-term kind is bound to throw up problems from time to time, we are confident that for the most part they can be overcome, and we are satisfied that in the long term new and expanding towns have an important part to play in implementing regional strategies.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he enlighten the House about the activities of the Location of Industries Bureau? Has it extended its activities, or is it contracting them? Has it been in receipt of an increased number of applications or a reduced number of applications, or is it in the process of putting up its shutters?

LORD SANDFORD

No, my Lords; it is not in the process of putting up its shutters. That is a rather different subject, and I would rather not answer the noble Lord's question without notice. If he puts down a Question I will certainly answer it.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, is it not the Location of Offices Bureau, and not the Location of Industries Bureau?