| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
Sir Paul Beresford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Greater London council sought a strategic role and it was largely self-invented. The search amused me occasionally. I remember the GLC's leader riding round the rose garden in Battersea park on an elephant. It was the first time that he had taken any interest in a mammal--certainly a four-legged mammal. It was an intriguing effort to invent a function for the GLC.
The GLC ended up as a middleman, fighting everyone. It fought those above, regardless of the political complexion of the Government and regardless of the political complexion of the GLC or the London county council before it, and it fought the lower tier.
It is said that the GLC had a strategic role. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West will recognise the old battle that we had when docklands was set up under the Greater London council with the "co-operation" of local Labour-controlled authorities. That was a long period of stagnation.
Since then, the London Docklands development corporation has turned things around. There are 36,000 jobs on the Isle of Dogs, compared with fewer than 20,000 in 1992. Jobs in docklands have increased from slightly more than 51,000 to almost 66,000. If the rate of growth continues, now that the link is in, those may soon be 70,000 plus. There has been a more than 70 per cent. increase in let office space. About £6 billion of private investment has been attracted since 1981, compared with £1.7 billion of public investment. That is what we want.
The area is growing. We have had 73 per cent. growth since 1981. It is now up to 68,000 and by the year 2000--
Sir Paul Beresford:
The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length and I have four minutes left so, if he does not mind, I will not give way; I am trying to speak and breathe at the same time, which is a feat that one learns.
We should acknowledge the importance to the country of a London with fewer regulations, without the havoc that the tax-making power of an additional authority would create. The Economist considered that issue in August 1995. It conducted a detailed review of the government of London. It did so because London is more vital to this country than other capital cities are to their countries. It is vital that it has the freedom to move.
The Economist said that a big central authority for London was likely to damage, not enhance, London's long-term economic interests and that the city could
continue to adapt and grow flexibly without central planning. It said that London's fragmentation was a source of strength rather than weakness and that the lesson for rising magna-cities was that a central strategic authority was not essential for prosperous growth. Self-governing neighbourhoods worked better than a single city hall and were a safer base for an urban economy.
That is what is happening; that is the way in which London is making progress. We now have co-operation between the Cabinet Ministerial Sub-Committee on London, the private sector and other independent organisations. A single group of local authorities is starting, without the dead hand of the Greater London council, to co-ordinate activities extremely productively.
That is why land is being regenerated, businesses are coming to this country and business men from overseas are coming to London. They come to London because London has the freedom. London is, in the opinion of many of those business men,
That is why about 40 per cent. of American and Japanese investment in Europe comes through London. That is why it is worth while--I emphasise arguments by some of my hon. Friends--having a link between London and Europe; it is our passageway through.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was asked where the boundaries should be, but he did not answer. He cannot answer that question because the location of the boundaries would depend on the function of the London authority. He must recognise its taxing power. We are talking about a strategically important capital city and, as such, we must acknowledge that no regional London authority--whatever its political power and that of central Government--has had or will have the control that it desires. Such an authority would stagnate London.
Mr. Giles Radice (North Durham):
The purpose of the debate is to draw to the attention of the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy, and of Parliament, the closure of the Tanfield Lea zinc carbon battery-making facility in my constituency, with the loss of 350 jobs.I am seeking Government assistance to help the area to recover from that blow.
I was shocked and disappointed to hear about the closure, as, when I opened the 25th anniversary celebrations at the factory in 1993, Ever Ready International management assured me that the plant had a bright future. The plant was opened by Anthony Crosland in the 1960s under the regional policy of that time.It was taken over by Hanson in the 1970s, and, under its ownership, the plant and its work force were run down. The plant was eventually sold to the international Ever Ready company, which assured my constituents that the plant at Tanfield Lea would be integral to its international plans.
However, the international company dropped a bombshell on 17 January, when it announced the closure of the battery-making facility. The plant itself has not closed, as the company will operate a satellite unit employing about 40 people. However, I believe that that is only a temporary measure.
The closure of the facility--which is the biggest manufacturing plant in my constituency--has had an enormous impact. First, jobs have been lost in an area where unemployment is above the national average, and young people now face reduced employment opportunities--which is a bad blow in itself. Secondly, valuable income has been lost in an area of below average incomes. When people lose fairly well-paid jobs and go on the dole--which many of them are likely to do--less money is available to households and to the entire area.
The Minister, who used to represent a northern constituency, knows that Derwentside has had its problems. The Consett steelworks closed in 1980-81--I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that, despite his embarrassing gaffe on a local radio programme--but the area has made a considerable recovery, partly due to the very effective work of the local development agency.
In light of the recent bad news, I convened a meeting at the plant with the international management, the chief executive of Derwentside and the director of the development agency. I urged the company to reconsider its decision--in particular, I asked it to switch to the production of alkaline batteries, for which there is a much larger market. The company denied my request. It said that the efficiency of the plant or the effectiveness of the work force was not in question--on the contrary, it had nothing but praise for its operations--and it pointed to a change in its worldwide strategy and the necessities of the global market.
In western Europe in particular, zinc carbon batteries are being replaced by long-life batteries. Even though there is a big market for zinc carbon batteries in Asia and Latin America, according to the company, that demand can be met more efficiently by its so-called super-factories in those regions. The company took the
decision for international strategy reasons, and my constituency was reminded once again that Britain is part of the international market.
I accept the company's decision: I can do little to change it. However, I have told company representatives that they must fulfil their corporate responsibilities--they cannot simply walk away from the area. I am pleased to report that the company agreed to co-operate with the Derwentside task force in the rundown of the company, which will occur over a year. It is committing funds to retraining and to re-employment services.
The Derwentside task force is vital to the recovery of the area, so it must continue to operate effectively. As the Minister knows, the task force was set up after the collapse of the Consett steelworks, and it has now been reconvened. We have that facility in the area partly because of the problems we faced in the past: we know how to deal with jobs crises. The local council, the development agency, County Durham training and enterprise council, and representatives of English Partnerships, the Department of Trade and Industry and the office of the north will serve on that body. It has met once and another meeting is scheduled.
The task force has produced an outline strategy, which will concentrate on retraining, providing alternative jobs and reclaiming the site. It faces a problem in its latter objective, as battery making involves chemical operations, which means that the site must be cleaned very effectively. The task force aims also to attract alternative industry to the area. I am glad that we have been joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who also represents the Derwentside area.
I shall tell the Minister what we want the Government to do. He recognises that there must be a partnership between the local area and the Government, and I would like him to refer to that issue today. If he accepts that this is a major factory closure and a major redundancy,I understand that that would allow the County Durham TEC to become fully involved.
As to co-ordination, a number of different Ministries are involved. Representatives of the Departments of Trade and Industry--which the Minister represents--of the Environment and of Education and Employment must come together and devote their wisdom, energy and resources to a co-ordinated effort to assist the area.We need maximum support from the Government and from European funding programmes. I am not an expert on all the funds, but I understand that money is available from various sources, such as English Partnerships, the single regeneration budget and other European funds.We need the Minister's help and advice on how to access those funds and apply the full force of what is available in the constituency.
"the most deregulated capital city in Europe."
12.29 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |