Orders of the Day — Supply – in the House of Commons at 11:20 pm on 23 June 1980.
I am pleased to have obtained this Adjournment debate tonight because I believe that the development of the Jarrow Slake is of vital importance to the Jarrow constituency and to the metropolitan district of South Tyneside, which includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) who, I hope, will have the oportunity later to say a few words.
The significance of Jarrow Slake is demonstrated by the amount of industrial land immediately available in the district of South Tyneside. Out of 58 hectares of land clasified as immediately available for industry, Jarrow Slake comprises 46 hectares—80 per cent. of the land immediately available for development. The site is in the centre of a district that has almost 10,000 people out of work, which is equivalent to an unemployment rate approaching 15 per cent.
Jarrow Slake was an area of extensive mud flats between the river Tyne and the main road linking South Shield and the Tyne tunnel. The slake came into the ownership of the Tyne commissioners in the 1870s. They let it out as an area for a series of maturing ponds for timber, which was then an expanding trade on the river Tyne. This continued until the late 1930s. I can recall, as a small child, going down to Jarrow Slake and playing on those timbers.
After the war the slake remained in use until the infilling started in the early 1970s. The Jarrow Slake has now been filled and reclaimed. It was Mark Twain who once said that land was valuable stuff because it was not being made any more. Here in South Tyneside we have made 46 hectares of land. The reclamation by the Port of Tyne Authority was undertaken slowly and haphazardly, as a self-financing proposition, without proper consolidation of the ground, over a period of years. The authority took over from the Tyne commissioners on reorganisation in the eary 1970s. While the site is now available, its stability and load bearing capacity will have to be established by borehole investigation.
Discussions about the future development of the slake have taken place between the local authorities—the South Tyneside metropolitan district council, Tyne and Wear county council and the Port of Tyne Authority—intermittently over the last six years. I was involved in many of these meetings, as a local councillor, before I was elected to this House. To say the least, one of the worst public authorities I have had the misfortune to deal with is the Port of Tyne authority. On reorganisation of the port authorities, a lot of power was taken away from elected members. At one time, before reorganisation, port authorities on the Tyne and Wear had elected representatives. That was taken away. Most local government representatives were taken off these authorities last year. The Port of Tyne Authority is one of these quangos we talk about so often now. Anyone who has had any dealings with a purely bureaucratic authority will realise that what I am saying is true.
I accept t hat the Port of Tyne Authority has a statutory obligation to operate in the best commercial interests of the port. I accept also that, since Jarrow Slake is the most extensive area of undeveloped land in its ownership, it represents one of the best opportunities that it has to secure development that will be revenue-earning and will help to underwrite the viability of the port.
This is where the difference between the local authorities and the port authority easily becomes visible. The Port of Tyne Authority is interested only in the viability of the port, but the local authorities are interested in getting labour-intensive industries on this valuable industrial site. However, the marketing of Jarrow Slake by the authority has been singularly unsuccessful in attracting port-related developments. In six years there have been three firms which have been sufficiently interested to put in planning applications, and I shall mention two in a moment to show the difference between the local authority and the Port of Tyne Authority.
One of the two was a pipe-coating firm which wished to develop the whole of the Slake and employ only about 200 men, which works out at fewer than two jobs per acre. This had the support of the Port of Tyne Authority because it was interested in the river fees that it would get by bringing those pipes up the Tyne, coating them and storing them. The other interested party at the time wanted to build mobile drilling rigs and use the whole of the area, and employ about 1,500 men.
That started a disagreement between the local authorities, which were the planning developers, and the Port of Tyne Authority, which owned the land. Whereas the local authorities were interested in 1,500 jobs, the Port of Tyne Authority was interested only in the river fees which the pipe firm would pay for bringing pipes in to be coated and stored. Let me point out, in case the Minister brings up this point, that the firm that was going to employ 1,500 men eventually went bankrupt, but that has nothing to do with the argument. I am simply trying to show how differently the authorities looked at the development of Jarrow Slake.
I have been interested in and involved with the Jarrow Slake for a considerable time. When I was elected to this House, I immediately put two questions to the Minister. The first was on 24 July last year, when I asked the Minister
when he expects the reclamation work to be completed at Jarrow Slake; if the reclaimed land will be available for industrial development; and what plans he has to encourage industrialists to develop there.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry replied:
I understand that reclamation work on the Jarrow Slake has been completed and the Port of Tyne Authority, which owns the land, is seeking tenants for the site.
Jarrow remains a special development area where the highest levels of regional assistance in Great Britain are available to encourage industrial development."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 167.]
I appreciated that reply, but knowing the history of Jarrow Slake, and also of the Port of Tyne Authority, I was dissatisfied with the contents of the answer, so I put down another question on 27 July. I asked the Secretary of State for Industry, further to the reply that he had given me on 24 July,
how many tenants the Port of Tyne Authority have contracted to develop on the Jarrow Slake; what type of tenant the authority is asking for; and what help he has given to get tenants to develop there.
The Under-Secretary of State replied:
Inquiries on this matter should be made directly to the Port of Tyne Authority which is responsible for finding tenants for Jarrow Slake. The Department of Industry is prepared to consider specific proposals for potential tenants for regional assistance."—[Official Report, 27 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 607.]
The local authorities have constantly called for at least part of this site to be released by the Port of Tyne Authority for general industrial development. The authorities recognise that the river frontage area, with its deep-water berth, is a valuable port resource. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that Jarrow Slake is the largest developable area of land in the Tyne and Wear area, with a deep water frontage making it of strategic value to both the planning authorities and to its owners, the Port of Tyne Authority.
When the referendum on the Common Market was held, people in the area were told by the pro-Marketeers that the Tyne would prosper, that it would be the gateway to Europe and that we would have all this trade with our EEC partners. We were told that once we got into Europe the port of Tyne would prosper. But it has not worked out like that.
The port authority has failed to attract any industry to Jarrow Slake and there is a chronic need for more industrial land in South Tyneside. The release of the landward portion of the site for general industrial purposes is thought by the local authorities to be a reasonable approach. However, the port of Tyne has refused to operate with even that limited flexibility.
The Secretary of State for the Environment has expressed his concern about the sterilisation of any land by land-holding parties or public bodies. Here is a classic case. Local authorities have fought for a long time to see the land brought into productive use, only to be thwarted by a public body which seems to bear no responsibility to anyone. It goes its own merry way and leaves the land dormant.
Compulsory acquisition of the land from the port authority would require parliamentary approval and it would be costly and delayed. Will the Minister tell the House what initiatives he proposes to take to bring Jarrow Slake into productive use and allow the local authorities to help themselves, as they are repeatedly told to do by various Ministers?
The Ministers could help the South Tyneside authority. It has done tremendous work on industrial development. Only two months ago we had a successful industrial fair which was attended by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and myself. The authority has developed small areas of land and, on its own initiative, has taken on industrial estates. I ask the Minister to take immediate action, because there are limits to what the local authority can do with its resources.
South Tyneside has spent nearly £4 million on industrial developments since the reorganisation of 1974. It is also the smallest metropolitan district in the country. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming with some decisions.
There has been a joint submission by North and South Tyneside for an enterprise zone to include Jarrow Slake. The Minister could transfer the land to the local authority for it to develop and promote with the economic development committee of Tyne and Wear county council. He could transfer the land to the English Industrial Estates Corporation under the powers contained in clause 9 of the Industry Bill. He could transfer the port authority to the Tyne and Wear county council, which is at least democratically elected and would have some political control. Finally, I suggest that the Minister should meet a deputation from the local authority to discuss the urgent development of this valuable piece of land in an area with such high unemployment.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for allowing me two or three minutes to take up a couple of the points that he has raised. I shall not attempt to go over any of the ground that he covered so eloquently in an area that he knows so well.
My hon. Friend argues that the Port of Tyne Authority is an unrepresentative body which has managed the almost impossible task of uniting the whole of the South Tyneside council. It is quite something to unite the progressives, the Tories, the Liberals and the Labour Party.
I am particularly interested in the matter, because Jarrow Slake forms the western flank of my constituency and the port authority also owns the land on the eastern flank, namely, the beaches. I have a perennial problem with the port authority. It takes sand off the beaches, in spite of a recommendation from the Government's hydraulic research station that it should not do so for a temporary period of three years. If the Minister is prepared to take up my hon. Friend's case with the Port of Tyne Authority, I hope that he will do the same over the sand on the South Shields beaches.
The second part of my hon. Friend's argument is that there is a clash of interests between the port authority and the local authority, which has a massive unemployment problem. We all know the traditional and horrific levels of unemployment in Jarrow. I take no pleasure tonight in saying that in the 1980s we are galloping towards a completely unacceptable level of unemployment in both South Shields and Jarrow. The latest figures show a male unemployment rate of 19 per cent. in South Shields—almost one man in five out of work. The figure for Jarrow is similar. The local authority must grapple with that problem, and it is very anxious to get labour-intensive industries.
The corollary to that is that the port of Tyne is deemed, by its terms of reference, to seek port-related work which might not involve labour-intensive industry. In the Shields Gazette last week, the managing director of the port of Tyne singled out an example of port-related work as the import of foreign cars. He suggested that there might be a scheme where 90,000 cars a year would need to be stored. In order to store them, sufficient port land would need to be available. If the managing director has Jarrow Slake in mind, I can tell him that everyone on South Tyneside regards that as an unsuitable piece of industrial investment.
I begin by assuring the hon. Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that I appreciate the serious problems of unemployment facing Tyneside generally, and South Tyneside in particular.
I hope that we can begin on the basis that the most important problem of the area is unemployment. Therefore, employment must be brought to the area; and when we look at a valuable piece of development land, that consideration must be the prime concern in the general public interest. But there are great problems encountered in attracting the necessary investment into the area, and they require the strongest possible local efforts by all concerned—elected authorities and the Port of Tyne Authority—if they are to be overcome. Anything that the Government can do to facilitate the attraction of new employment and investment to that area will be done.
In looking at the industrial and employment prospects of South Tyneside, I accept that Jarrow Slake has considerable and dominating importance. It forms the major development area within the boundaries of South Tyneside itself. It is owned by the Port of Tyne Authority, which has been reclaiming it during the 1970s with the aim of providing a valuable riverside site. To be fair to the authority, which has been subjected to much criticism in this debate, we should begin by congratulating it on its achievement in reclaiming this piece of land and providing, by its efforts, the major industrial development site in the area. Of course the authority is attracted by the fact that as port land it provides a site ideally suited for major developments needing access to deep water.
I should hope that the interests of the Port of Tyne Authority would not be inconsistent with the aims and ambitions of the South Tyneside local authority. I hope that part of the dispute and conflict between the two bodies can be solved and that they can agree on some common objectives. If the Port of Tyne Authority can be successful in its main aim and in fulfilling its statutory duties, that must surely be in the interests of the area as well. Obviously it is in the interests of Tyneside as a whole if there is a healthy port and healthy port-related development on the estuary. And if the port is to be healthy and viable, it must have adequate traffic and be free to exervice its judgment about the development of facilities.
Again, I think it is right to acknowledge that the Port of Tyne Authority has had to react in recent years to considerable blows to its trade and, therefore, to its employment prospects. The port of Tyne has suffered the loss of its staple trades of coal and iron ore and it has made sub stantial strides in recent years to build up traffic again and to improve its financial position.
I can cite—I shall not take too long because of limited time—recent developments on the Tyne which bear witness to this. For example, there is the growth of passenger and cargo traffic at the Albert Edward dock, the new roll-on/roll-off berth at Whitehill Point and the redevelopment of the riverside quay for general cargo to replace the former iron ore facilities. But the actions of the Port of Tyne Authority ought not to be contrary to those of the local authorities. I pay tribute to the support which the local authorities have given to the port in recent years. Tyne and Wear county council has provided advantageous loan terms to help to finance the Whitehill Point development and has made strenuous efforts to retain Scandinavian traffic for the Tyne. Given that the hon. Member for Jarrow made references to the European Community, European development fund grants have also contributed to the development of new port projects.
The Government are also prepared to continue to play their part. The status of Tyne and Wear as a special development area—therefore attracting the highest levels of aid for assisted areas—will remain unchanged following the review cf regional policy by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I hope that, as the general economic situation improves, the benefits resulting from that status will be shared by Tyne and Wear as a whole.
The successful new town nearby at Washington has brought new industry and employment. The English Industrial Estates Corporation has been active in Jarrow, and the inner cities policy is bringing great assistance to South Tyneside. I am told that there is to be £2½ million of urban programme assistance this year to the borough as a programme authority. My noble Friend Lord Bell-win has just approved the district's inner area programme for 1980–81, under which £600,000 will be spent on economic development projects.
That is the background against which we have to consider the problems of Jarrow Slake and the disappointing fact that this major area of land, which has been reclaimed, is at the moment lying fallow and unused and providing no employment prospects in an area which is attempting to cope with considerable difficulties.
I have made it clear that I regret that the future use of Jarrow Slake has been a source of some conflict between the port authority and the local authorities for many years. Both these bodies, if one is talking only about South Tyneside and the Port of Tyne Authority, or all the bodies, if one takes in the local authorities, should share the same objective, which is to attract the best kind of economic development to the area and the maximum employment potential.
The councils are right to want the site developed quickly to give maximum economic benefits by creating new jobs in South Tyneside. I am sure that the port authority has no objection and sees no conflict for itself with that objective, but it also sees the slake as the last remaining riverside site with potential deep water frontage. It is bound, as a port authority, to see any diminution of river frontages as a bar to fulfilling its general obligation as a port and its success as a commercial undertaking.
I hope that these differences in discussions recently can be resolved locally because of the common objectives which all these authorities ought to share. The port authority's wish to retain the river frontage for port-related development is understandable. Until it can secure a port-related development, the port authority cannot readily release land for more general development in the hinterland. On the other hand, the local authorities' wish for labour-intensive employment in the area is readily understandable.
For my part, as a committed and involved observer as a Minister in the Ministry of Transport, I hope all can agree that the ideal solution will be to try to attract some labour-intensive, but preferably port-related, development to the majority of the land that has been made available by the reclamation of Jarrow Slake.
The Port of Tyne Authority tells me that it is making strenuous efforts to market Jarrow Slake. Unfortunately, so far those hopes have not come to fruition, as the hon. Member for Jarrow says. For instance, there was a project for an iron ore reduction plant that failed because of the problems in the steel industry. I be lieve that it eventually moved elsewhere. There was also a mobile drilling rig proposal, where, again unfortunately, the firm went into liquidation. At present the port authority has two inquiries for developing Jarrow Slake, but it is too early to say whether either will come to fruition.
I understand that if the Port of Tyne Authority can find a major port-related development, it will certainly be prepared to consider the release of the balance of the land, in particular that land with access from the land side, for general industrial development, as the local authority would wish. Eventually, I hope that the site will be able to accomodate the type of development that will meet everyone's interests, with port-related development along the deep water front but with surplus land left over for general industrial development.
The hon. Member for Jarrow asked whether I would receive a delegation from the South Tyneside authority. If he wishes to bring a delegation to see me, I shall of course receive it. It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that I should like to learn from the local authority what type of developments it has in prospect. Some members of the authority, including the hon. Gentleman from what he said this evening, are very critical of the Port of Tyne Authority. I assume—but I am not yet quite clear—that they have specific ideas which they feel may lead to development on the site. It is a difficult area in which to attract investment, and these are difficult times to attract new investment for major projects. It is all too easy to castigate the lack of marketing of an authority that is anxious to develop all this land. It will be interesting to know what projects the local authority has in mind. We can then see whether its understandable ambitions to attract labour-intensive industry can be reconciled with the Port of Tyne Authority's understandable wish for port development.
The Minister said that the port of Tyne should be congratulated on the reclamation. The reverse is true. We wanted the land reclaimed much quicker. It is the last piece of available industrial land in South Tyneside, where we have high unemployment. The Port of Tyne Authority was only interested in making the land self-financing. We wanted jobs.
The local authority has developed almost every piece of land that it has. That piece of land is 80 per cent. of the remaining available industrial land. I have negotiated with the Port of Tyne Authority. It is responsible to no one. The local authority receive a negative response to all its approaches.
The Port of Tyne Authority, of course, has an eye to its finances. In order to remain a strong and successful port authority, it has to. It is in the interests of Tyneside as a whole that the port of Tyne should be a successful port and thereby able to generate employment along the whole length of its estuary. The port reclaimed the land out of its own revenues. It is to be congratulated on that. It is too easy to stand on one side and criticise the pace at which that was done. I am not at all sure that the South Tyneside authority from its own resources would have found it easy to reclaim that substantial area of land at Jarrow Slake. It is also true that the local authority and the English Industrial Estates Corporation, with the assistance that it gets from the central Government, have been able to develop a lot of land in South Tyneside. I do not wish to detract from that. However, there is still other land available in South Tyneside, and I hope that that can be developed. If everything has to be concentrated on Jarrow Slake—and there are other areas available on Tyneside—I should be interested to meet the deputation and learn precisely what the local authority believes that they can attract.
I hope that the hon. Member for Jarrow and his colleagues on the council will not indulge in the slightly easy position—and I am sure that they are not—of hurling criticism at the Port of Tyne Authority, which has failed, despite all its efforts, to get development on the land that it has reclaimed, and somehow pretend that it will be easy for the local authority or anyone else to get the large labour-intensive investment that the area needs. Unfortunately, in the present economic climate, it will be a very difficult task to get that large labour-intensive investment.
I conclude by touching on two other matters. I am aware of the bid for an enterprise zone, including South and North Tyneside's bid, for an area including Jarrow Slake. There is keen competition for such zones. If there were too many, the point of the policy would be frustrated. The bid is being seriously considered, but it must await a final announcement on the choice of zones by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
So far as the sand on South Shields beaches is concerned, I undertake to write to the hon. Member for South Shields. That matter is somewhat aside from this evening's debate.
I do not believe that we can talk of compulsory acquisition of the port land, handing it over to the local authority or anything like that. I hope that there can be some sensible compromise and understanding between the Port of Tyne Authority and the local authorities to pursue their common objective of getting the right kind of employment on this valuable land. The Government are prepared to assist in that objective and to try to achieve better local understanding and co-operation.