| Home Page |
Column 779
Shipbuilding (Wearside)
3.30 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the decision by the European Commission on shipbuilding and ship repair on the Wear.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : I saw Sir Leon Brittan on 2 February to discuss the proposed sale of certain sites of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. Sir Leon Brittan made it plain that he would not accept any proposal predicated upon a return to shipbuilding even after the expiry of the five-year period. I saw the Anglo-Greek consortium yesterday and told it of the Commission's views. I said that limited facilities to undertake a ship repair and refurbishment operation at the NESL North Sands site would be allowed. It is considering the offer. The enterprise zone at Southwick will be designated as soon as possible. It is likely that the Tyne and Wear development corporation will now proceed with its plans to redevelop the St. Peter's Riverside development site.
Ms. Quin : Will the Minister accept that the latest pronouncements of the European Commission in the person of the Government's own appointee, Sir Leon Brittan, are such as to make future shipbuilding on the Wear, even after the five-year period, virtually impossible? Does the Minister's statement mean that the Southwick yard, which is one of the most modern in Europe, will be bulldozed and that it cannot be used for future shipbuilding activities? Will the Minister comment on the secrecy surrounding the agreement with the European Commission in December 1988? Did the Minister understand the agreement that was entered into by the Government at that time? Will he make the details public to us, because they have never been fully revealed?
The Minister's failure to understand has meant that would-be purchasers of North-East Shipbuilders Ltd., or parties which wanted to place orders in those yards, had their hopes raised during last year and then dashed, as it appeared that the European Commission would not allow those activities to take place. The Minister has made play of the enterprise zone. Does he accept that an enterprise zone would have been possible for Sunderland, based on unemployment levels and previous shipbuilding job losses in the town, but that the people of Sunderland, while seeing advantage in an enterprise zone, do not want one in return for the closure of their shipyards and their shipbuilding facilities?
Hon. Members will no doubt raise their constituency interests in supplementary questions, but will the Minister accept that there are important national implications in the decision of the European Commission? At a time when Japan is taking the lion's share of the boom in shipbuilding orders, when German yards are organising joint ventures with their counterparts in East Germany and when Britain has had more job losses in shipbuilding than any other European country, could not the Government have stood up for British shipbuilding and the Sunderland yard more than they have done?
In this connection, will the Minister comment on the editorial in today's Lloyd's List that it is simply unacceptable to have a rump of a shipbuilding industry which is utilised only when the Japanese and South
Column 780
Korean order books are full? Are not the Government guilty of failing to recognise the value of the shipbuilding industry and the role that it can play in our industrial future?Mr. Hogg : The hon. Lady asked a variety of questions, and I shall seek to respond to them. On the allegation of secrecy, there has been no secrecy in this matter. She will recall that the whole matter was considered at considerable length by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I had the pleasure of appearing before that Committee and explaining events.
On unemployment in the Sunderland area, the hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, although in December 1988 unemployment was about 26,154, or 15 per cent., I am glad to say that in the 12 months until December 1989, it fell by three percentage points to stand at 12 per cent.
I confirm that it is unlikely that shipbuilding will return to Sunderland. The hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that the development plans of the consortium developed over a period. I make no criticism of that ; I simply state that that is what happened. The plans started off as ship repair and refurbishment plans. Then they embraced an element of shipbuilding. Then shipbuilding became the core of the plans. As recently as January of this year, the plans suggested that all the work should be done at Southwick. It was a constantly developing programme.
The plain truth is that shipbuilding is a cyclical industry. I am afraid that shipbuilding in Sunderland has consumed vast quantities of public money. In no sense would the Government be justified in continuing to subsidise the activity in the way that they previously had.
The hon. Lady should be more bullish about the future of Sunderland. She should bear in mind the fact that we put in place an extensive remedial package which included £45 million worth of remedial measures--in particular, the enterprise zone. I hope that that will create between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs in the town. I believe that the future of Sunderland is extremely good. It has been greatly improved by being based on a diversified, strong local economy, which is what we are achieving.
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Although the Labour party has no grounds for complaint because of its now near-obsession with commitment to the EEC and the development of broader powers there, will my hon. Friend the Minister seriously consider that there is a serious democratic problem when a non-elected civil servant in Brussels can instruct the British Government and Parliament, irrespective of their wishes, that shipbuilding without special aids cannot continue in a part of this country?
In view of this devastating blow for shipbuilding and democracy in Britain, will the Government begin to wake up to the enormous threat of destruction of our democracy of transferring power from elected Parliaments to the non- elected bureaucracies? What is the point of rejoicing at what is happening in eastern Europe at people's escape from a centralised bureacracy, when that is what we are creating in western Europe?
Mr. Hogg : I am afraid, much though I respect my hon. Friend, that I do not accept his analysis. In December 1988, we notified the Commission of the closure of the yards. We put forward a series of remedial proposals, which were accepted on the basis of the closure of the shipbuilding capacity in Sunderland. If we wish to renotify
Column 781
any further scheme, we must go to the Commission with the full plans. The Commission has unfettered discretion on whether to approve those plans. That is what has happened, and it is consistent with the practice that has been approved in this place.Mr. Bob Clay (Sunderland, North) : Does not the Minister accept that, when he says that the Anglo-Greek proposal changed several times, he ignores the fact that the consortium changed them as it tried to keep up with the goal posts that the European Commission and the Department of Trade and Industry kept moving? They began by defining closure as shipbuilding without subsidy changed it to no shipbuilding for five years and now have a scorched earth policy, saying that we cannot retain the assets that would allow for a resumption of shipbuilding after five years.
Is it not the case that even the modest ship repair proposal that is to be allowed will have to have every acre of land and every piece of equipment that is purchased scrutinised in Brussels just to make sure that it may not be used for shipbuilding in the future? Given that British Shipbuilders, the Tyne and Wear development corporation, Sunderland council, the local Members of Parliament, and the Members of the European assembly, all welcomed the Greek proposal for Southwick--I believe that the Minister himself gave it some support--what is the hidden agenda that leads the British Government, in the most subservient way, to give in to every arbitrary and legally dubious whim on which Sir Leon Brittan decides? Can the Minister honestly tell the House that, if the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) had understood what the notorious December 1988 package really meant, he would ever have agreed to it?
Mr. Hogg : I make no criticism of the Greek consortium. The hon. Gentleman knows that it changed its plans. That is not a result--
Mr. Hogg : That is not a result of the Department of Trade and Industry changing the goal posts ; it was because we pressed the consortium hard on the viability of its proposals--and on whether its plans offered the prospects of good quality and permanent jobs. It was against that pressing that the consortium identified in its plans that the main element would be a return to shipbuilding.
There are mixed views even within Sunderland on this matter. There is a powerful case for saying that it is not in Sunderland's interests to return to shipbuilding, and that Sunderland's economic future would be very much better served by the broadly based and diversified economy that the remedial measures that we have put in place will bring about.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks) : Will my hon. Friend accept support for his position from his hon. Friends, simply because he has no real alternative? Will he take every opportunity to emphasise the positive aspects of what is happening in the area in question? To save further mix- ups of the type that might have happened over the last couple of years, will my hon. Friend also undertake to clarify with the European Commission just how long the conditions that it has set up are meant to be in force?
Column 782
Mr. Hogg : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The European Commission's policy, effectively, is that, during the period when one is required to give notification of a proposal, it will not accept a proposal that is predicated on a return to shipbuilding. I repeat that such a scheme or proposal will not be acceptable to the Commission. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that one needs to be positive about this. The diversified, broadly based economy that our measure will bring to Sunderland is very much in the interests of that town and will free it from independence upon a cyclical industry, which is not in the long-term interests of Sunderland.
Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East) : If the private sector wishes to preserve Sunderland for shipbuilding, why is the state, in the person of the Minister, intervening to prevent it? I thought that the Conservative party believed in letting the private sector take a lead in these matters. How does the Minister defend depriving the whole of the north-east of England of intervention funding for its shipbuilding industry, and yet continuing to fund such support for Harland and Wolff in Belfast?
Mr. Hogg : Two separate points are raised in that question, and I shall address them both, if I may. First, in so far as the proposals are predicated on a return to shipbuilding, the Commissioner has made it wholly plain to me that such a proposal would not be acceptable to the Commission.
The hon. Gentleman's second point dealt with private sector against private sector. However, he has omitted to realise that we have a viable private sector alternative for both Southwick and North Sands. For Southwick, we have the enterprise zone and for North Sands, we have the TWDC's St. Peter's Riverside development.
Mr. Nicholas Brown indicated dissent.
Mr. Hogg : The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I can tell him now, and I do tell him now through you, Mr. Speaker, that, from the point of view of Sunderland's future, the TWDC prefers its development for North Sands to that of the Greeks.
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : Is it not the case that, in the past 10 years, the north-east has suffered an extremely painful transition from old, declining industries to new, sunrise industries and that employment opportunities have improved dramatically in the past two years? Given that there are plans on the drawing board for a major redevelopment of the centre of Sutherland, it would not be right to take such rearguard action, which presents a nostalgic view of the north-east as a traditional shipbuilding area--which is no longer the case. We should turn our backs on the past and press forward with the future.
Mr. Hogg : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a deep knowledge of the problems of the area. In the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen by three percentage points, which is a dramatic improvement.
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point by suggesting that there are real dangers in being too dependent upon a cyclical industry such as shipbuilding. It is better by far for the economy of the town to be broadly based and diverse. That will be the effect of the St. Peter's Riverside development and of the enterprise zone.
Column 783
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Is the Minister aware that he is talking nonsense when he says that opinion in Sunderland is divided on this issue? Every conceiveable strand of opinion-- of the borough council, Members of Parliament, the local Tory newspaper and the chamber of commerce--is satisfied that a return to shipbuilding is in the best interests of Sunderland. Is it not a fact that Sunderland and his Department have been well and truly stitched up by the EEC? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Sunderland has one of the most modern shipyards in western Europe, but we are about to sit and watch it being demolished--that is akin to a scorched earth policy. It will be a crime if the shipyard at Southwick is allowed to be demolished. We should at least keep it mothballed for four or five years, so that the opportunity to build ships again in Sunderland can be taken up when it comes, after his Government have been swept away.Mr. Hogg : Let us analyse the hon. Gentleman's remarks by considering the last point that he made. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Southwick site should be mothballed for five years--in other words, no productive use should be made of 40 acres for about five years. That cannot be-- [Interruption.] That cannot be in the interests of Sunderland, especially when one bears in mind the fact that there will be an enterprise zone on that site, which will create many jobs. We expect that 800 jobs will be created on the part of the enterprise zone now covered by the Southwick site.
So opinion in Sunderland is divided, but there is also a division between what people say in public and what they say in private. There is a strong opinion in the town that recognises the dangers of being dependent upon a cyclical industry, and which sees the advantages of the enterprise zone at Southwick and of the TWDC's development at North Sands. There is a great deal of support for them and, on reflection, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join that support.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Is it not true that shipbuilding is still a labour-intensive industry? That is why, in relatively advanced economies such as Japan, shipbuilding, with the exception of the recent cyclical upsurge, has had a reduced importance in its economy. It is a complete mirage to offer people false hope that an industry such as shipbuilding is an industry of the future, especially bearing in mind the appalling history of awful management and poor labour relations in that industry and the huge subsidy that must be paid for each ship built in Europe.
Mr. Hogg : My hon. Friend is entirely right. I am afraid that the track record of shipbuilding in Sunderland over recent years was simply not good. It consumed large sums of public money and required great subsidies. He is right to draw attention to the financial perils associated with returning to shipbuilding in Sunderland. It may be relevant for the House to know that the financial advice that we received on the Greek consortium's plans was that they were fraught with considerable risks of failure.
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is an Opposition day and statements should be confined to shipbuilding and ship repair on the Wear.
Column 784
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : Is not the announcement of an enterprise zone a ministerial admission that the Government are in despair at what remains of regional policy? Is not the Minister aware of the evidence that his Department gave to the National Audit Office, that it will cost £30,000 per job to create a job in an enterprise zone and that, for that reason, the Government had virtually abandoned enterprise zones? Is he not also aware that those jobs that were created came largely from elsewhere in the locality, and that those that were new were generally in retailing or wholesaling, and were part-time and low-paid?
Mr. Hogg : I can only suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reflect on these matters before he asks such a question. If he had the time to visit, for example, Scunthorpe or Corby, to mention just two places, he would see the blatant absurdity of the question that he has just asked. Enterprise zones are an extremely effective way of getting assistance to those areas that need it most. The zone will be an important part of the regeneration of Sunderland. A little more homework would improve the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Neville Trotter (Tynemouth) : There has been reference to the cyclical nature of this industry, but is not a continuing factor the domination of the world market for merchant shipbuilding by far eastern yards, which continue to offer ships at prices that are millions of pounds less than are quoted in Europe? Is it not unrealistic to expect that to change? Will not Sunderland's future be better with high-tech industries that will be attracted by the enterprise package? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the package is already proving successful in attracting industries with a future that is bright and that it will reflect future pride and glory on the town of Sunderland, in the way that shipbuilding has in the past?
Mr. Hogg : I can indeed give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. He has been a powerful advocate of the interests of his part of the country. He is entirely right to say that we have seen some important industries coming into the north-east. He is most certainly right to draw attention to the capacity that exists for shipbuilding in the far east, where many shipyards have been mothballed. I question very much whether shipbuilding will be the highly profitable industry that some Opposition Members suggest.
Mr. Roland Boyes (Houghton and Washington) : Is the Minister aware that I attended a conference recently in America where the discussion was based on getting goods, men and equipment across the Atlantic in case there was a war in Europe? The conclusion of the conference was that there was a marked shortage of merchant shipping to carry out those tasks. Therefore, how is it that, when there is a shipyard in Sunderland with the best equipment and skilled men for building ships, the Government intend to go abroad to increase Britain's merchant shipping? Is not that ridiculous?
Mr. Hogg : As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we tried to find a bidder for the NESL yard for many months before the decision was made in December 1988 to close it. I am afraid that, for many years, shipbuilding in Sunderland was making enormous losses and had to be
Column 785
subsidised by public money to a huge extent. It is not right, and is not a proper use of public assets, to continue with that policy, and we shall not do so.Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) : The Minister has sought to blame Leon Brittan for the decision, but has also sought to argue in the House that it was the right decision. Will he clarify whether, in talking to Leon Brittan, he urged the case for the consortium to be allowed to go ahead on behalf of local jobs or simply accepted Leon Brittan's decision--or even welcomed it?
Mr. Hogg : I have not tried to blame anybody ; I have explained the situation. The Commissioner made it clear in discussion--I urged the contrary point of view--that he would not allow shipbuilding to return to Sunderland in the circumstances being proposed by the Greek consortium. That is the explanation that I have given the House. When we came to contrast the Greek proposals for Southwick and for North Sands with the alternatives, it was far from clear that, on its merits, the Greek proposal should be preferred. For example, the Greek proposal for the North Sands Riverside development involved taking up to 20 acres of land that would otherwise form part of the TWDC's development. Another factor was that the TWDC development will provide about 850 jobs, which would not have been compatible with the Greek scheme.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Will the Minister confirm that, when the Government decided to install remedial measures in the Sunderland area, they had to go to the EEC for permission for such regional aid and did Her Majesty's Government give the undertaking that the shipyard would be closed? If so, under what regulation did the EEC issue such an edict, when was it debated by the House and what view was taken of it in the House?
Mr. Hogg : On the latter detailed questions, I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect. With regard to the main part of this question, the position in broad terms--I say "broad terms" because it was the subject of extensive evidence before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry--is that we had to notify the EEC of the £45 million package of closure aid that we were giving in Sunderland, and that was approved on the basis of the irreversible closure of shipbuilding in Sunderland. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we gave a written undertaking to that effect, I think that the answer is no.
Column 786
Points of Order
3.56 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Question 74 in my name on today's Order Paper was submitted to the Department of Health on 6 February, but I discovered that it had been transferred to the Northern Ireland Office. I told the Table Office that that was wrong, but I was informed that that was the Department of Health's decision. I pursued the matter, and I have finally received an apology today. It is ridiculous that, if a Northern Ireland Member who takes an interest in the affairs of the kingdom writes to a Department, the matter can be referred to the Northern Ireland Office. Is that, intentionally or unintentionally, another attempt to make Northern Ireland an appendage of the Kingdom rather than a full party to it?
Mr. Speaker : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, because it has enabled me to look carefully into the matter.
As the House well knows, I and my predecessors in the Chair have frequently ruled that the transfer of questions from one Department to another is a matter for Ministers, and that the Chair cannot intervene.
However, on this occasion, the Department of Health has clearly recognised that it made an error in transferring the hon. Gentleman's question to the Northern Ireland Office, since it has reappeared on today's Order Paper addressed to the Secretary of State for Health in its original position in the shuffle.
I understand also that Question 135 from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon- Tweed (Mr. Beith) was about to be transferred in error to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but it was kept after representations from the hon. Gentleman. Question 142 from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was similarly transferred to the Secretary of State for Scotland without apparent justification, and has not been re-transferred.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has not in the end suffered from the erroneous transfer, but it does appear that the Departments concerned, in particular the Department of Health, have not taken sufficient care over the transfer of questions which hon. Members have a right to expect. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has received an apology from the Department of Health.
Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to the Education (Student Loans) Bill, and it is one of which I gave brief notice to you and to the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for higher education. Last night, the Secretary of State for Education and Science issued a press statement announcing that he might amend the Bill to force or coerce university and college authorities into what he described as "co-operating" with the administration of the already discredited student loan scheme. That would mark a further major departure from the scheme's administration as approved by this House.
As the Secretary of State must have contemplated that idea for many weeks, do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman has yet again shown contempt for this House, by waiting until after the Third Reading before
Column 787
making his announcement, and by making a press statement rather than a statement to the House? Have you received any intimation whether the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House, as he should?Mr. Speaker : I have not received any such intimation--and I am, of course, aware that the Bill is currently under consideration in another place.
Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be aware of the dastardly attack made on the Father of the House at the weekend. He is not at all well today, and cannot take his usual place in this Chamber. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to send him, on behalf of the House, good wishes for his health and for his speedy return?
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that the whole House shares the hon. Lady's sentiments. I sent the Father of the House a message on Monday, but was unaware that he was so unwell today. I shall do as the hon. Lady suggests.
Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the news to which my point of order refers only broke after 12 o'clock, it was not possible for me to table a private notice question on the decision by British Steel to close Ravenscraig, the steelworks in my constituency, for another week from 25 March. Such a decision, arising from a short-term reduction in demand, greatly angers the steel workers and the public in general in Scotland, and is capable of gross misinterpretation if Ministers cannot be called to account immediately and make a statement. Has the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Secretary of State for Scotland sought leave to make a statement, to allay any misunderstanding that might arise?
Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) makes a very good point. The production pause to which he refers is a bad decision, dictated by short-term considerations. I emphasise to you, Mr. Speaker, how important it is for the Government to keep the House informed of developments. A great deal of anxiety is felt about the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that the remarks of both hon. Gentlemen will be conveyed through the usual channels.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner). You will be aware, Sir, that the incident at the Royal Albert hall last Saturday night involved acts of violence against several right hon. and hon. Members. During the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool,
Column 788
Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), a smoke bomb was thrown, and various flour bombs were thrown throughout the proceedings--Mr. Speaker : Order. Those events took place in another chamber--the chamber of the Royal Albert hall. I share the hon. Lady's concern, but they are not strictly a matter of order for this place.
Miss Widdecombe : My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that those incidents were part of a picket by a group called the "Stop the Amendment" campaign. Various hon. Members are closely associated with that campaign. Do you, Mr. Speaker, think that it is honourable conduct for hon. Members to be associated with such a campaign?
Mr. Speaker : If anything of that kind occurred in this place, I would take a very poor view of it.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : Further to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), Mr. Speaker. The whole House will have been disturbed that the most senior figure in this House, the Father of the House, was left after a cowardly attack on Saturday night with his arm in a sling and with a blackened eye, having been pushed to the ground and his head crushed against a lamp post. He had been explaining to a perfectly proper public meeting the details of a Bill currently before Parliament.
That must certainly be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. Are you prepared to call upon the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to investigate that incident? Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it has implications for right hon. and hon. Members who go about their proper duties in pursuit of parliamentary democracy and who, in the course of doing so, are subject to thuggery and intimidation? Surely that cannot be right.
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that the whole House will judge that to be an absolutely reprehensible episode. However, I cannot have responsibility for the safety of Members when they are outside the Chamber. Of course I have great concern for the Father of the House. As I have already said, I have sent him a message, and I shall do so again today.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to what the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said, obviously all hon. Members deplore what happened at the weekend. However, surely it cannot be in order for the hon. Lady to stand and impugn other hon. Members of the House and to say that somehow they endorsed or had some knowledge of the attack that took place, or knew that it was going to take place. That is to impugn the integrity of those who happen to disagree with her. Surely she should withdraw that imputation?
Mr. Speaker : I think that we had better get on with the Opposition day debate.
Column 789
Unadopted Roads
4.5 pm
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedures whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority ; and for connected purposes.
I know how anxious the House is to debate the Royal Shakespeare Company, because nothing can be nearer to the Labour party's manifesto than "A Midsummer Night"s Dream". However, I shall limit my remarks to 10 minutes.
The Bill is aimed at bringing up to date and simplifying the law on private or unadopted streets. It is a tangled area of the law and one which causes a great many problems and misunderstandings. Those familiar with and involved in highway law are only too well aware that private streets often mean trouble. The perception of the public--the home-owners and frontagers- -is that, under the existing rating system which is being phased out with the introduction of the community charge in five weeks' time, owners of properties in private streets usually pay lower rates, and the property prices are often lower than for surrounding dwellings, fronting adopted roads. What so many of those home-owners often fail to understand are the possible consequences of private street status, and many get a nasty shock when they find that they are liable for accidents, and that they have to make up the road surface, and dig up and re-lay the road for water, gas and electricity, often completely at their own expense.
At first sight, to many people the price differential, and in the past the small differential in the rates bill, have seemed thoroughly attractive in the short term. However, in the long term, the liabilities accompanying a private highway far outweigh the small benefits passed on by the rating authority for the lack of a paved footpath, a highway or street lighting. Some people prefer the quiet life of an unadopted road. My Bill contains no element of compulsion.
Much of the present legislation dates back to the 19th century, and although some new developments involve private streets, those generally cause relatively few problems. There are well-established procedures whereby developers use the advance payments code to agree with the highway authority to make up the streets throughout a new estate. A consultation document has recently been produced by the highway authorities and local authority associations about how the law on unadopted roads should be improved.
The Bill allows district councils to contribute to the cost of street works. At present, they are prevented from doing so. Frontagers to public footpaths should have to pay for the associated street works, and vice versa. The cost of making up a public footpath should be included in the cost of the street works.
The Bill will provide increased flexibility for serving notices, and will ensure that there is provision to recover the cost of street works on behalf of a frontager, when the owner is unknown. The Bill will allow authorities to disapply the advanced payments code when they decide to do so, and will empower authorities to release deposits after four years. In some cases, authorities have held deposits against private street works. The value has dwindled because of inflation and, with the passage of time, has become meaningless
Column 790
when measured against the initial cost of the road works. However, the Bill would include provisions to allow an authority to decide a rate of interest on deposits, and would include a fine of £1,000, for non-compliance, when the builder or the owner does not carry out the work to the satisfaction of the highway authority.This potholed area of the law is not all gloom and doom. I am pleased to be able to say that local authority associations and the house builders have formulated a new agreement, which will be an improvement on the old one.
It has been estimated that the country contains more than 4,000 miles of unadopted road, and that it would cost over £2,000 million to make them up. As so often happens, Scotland has already addressed the problem : the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Regulations 1985, SI 1985/2080, make the law on private streets much simpler, and remove some of the difficulties.
It appears that there is complete agreement within the Department of Transport that the current system in England and Wales needs to be simplified. Unfortunately, it is not a high priority for the Government, and to make any changes will be a complex and technical task. Nevertheless, given the existence of 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales and the phasing out of domestic rates, I feel that the system cannot be allowed to go on bumping along in a rough and ready way as it has, in many ways, since the 1930s.
One of my constituents has spent much of his retirement researching the legal liability of his own unadopted road, tracing it back to the Isle of Wight Highways Act 1813, which was subsequently repealed in 1925. Until that repeal, any island road that had been dedicated to the public was automatically repairable by the local authority. That small extract of the legal history of just one road in my constituency will, I think, give the House a taste of the complexity of the unadopted road system--five years of research by a retired civil servant endeavouring to establish the legal and financial liabilities for the unadopted road running past his house. I understand that the last Department of Transport survey was carried out in 1972 : it was established then that England and Wales contained 40,000 unadopted roads, amounting to 4,000 miles. It is thought that no significant change has been made since the survey. The main thrust of my Bill, which provides for the paving, levelling and lighting of unadopted roads, is to ensure that frontagers can in future make their decisions on the basis of a simple majority, either in number or in the value of property. It is extraordinary that the nation can elect a Government by a simple majority, while residents whose houses front on to unadopted roads are prevented from making provision for their own comfort, enjoyment and safety--and for enhancing the value of their properties--by complex, outdated and outmoded legislation that requires everyone to be in total agreement before works can proceed. That cannot be right, and I know that I speak for thousands of home-owners when I say that we look to the House to replace a musty, outmoded tangle of legal nightmares with modern legislation that is easily available and acceptable to every estate that wishes to make up its roads, and to have them adopted by its local council.
Question put and agreed to.
Column 791
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. Ian Taylor, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. David Evans.Unadopted Roads
Mr. Barry Field accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the procedures whereby householders and frontagers may seek the making up and adoption of a road by a local authority ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 March and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
| Next Section
| Home Page |