INNER URBAN AREAS BILL (Hansard, 26 April 1978)

HC Deb 26 April 1978 vol 948 cc1514-67 1514

§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Litterick
Opposition Members should read a book called "The Body Politic" whose author's name is Ian Gilmour. That is what is on the cover. He quite explicitly says that one of the perpetual sources of strength of the Tory Party is the voluntary and charity organisations. With his characteristic cynicism, he says that that is how the Tory Party keeps its activists sweet and happy.

1515

§ Mr. Lawrence
You are as mad as a hatter.

§ Mr. Litterick
In other words, charity is a racket with the Tory Party. It is a political implement. If Opposition Members do not believe me, I suggest that they read the book, which has been written by one of their own Front Benchers whose cynicism is well known in this House.
Opposition Members have done the proposition a great deal of mischief, and I am rather glad. When I think of non-statutory bodies in this context, I think of organisations of people who reside in these blasted areas—

§ Mr. Steen
The National Council for Civil Liberties.

§ Mr. Litterick
—which voice the needs and desires not of somebody else but of themselves—the people who have to endure living in these god-awful districts. That is my idea of an appropriate non-statutory organisation. It is most appropriate.
Selly Oak has one such organisation, called the Selly Oak Development Com 1516 mittee. It was formed in response to the drafting of the Bill. The battle being fought by these people is a battle to have Selly Oak represented on the inner area committee, because they know that they suffer from precisely the same urban diseases as are endured in areas included in the boundary definition. But these people actually live there. They suffer from those conditions. They are not middle-class people patronising somebody else. That is my idea of the kind of people who ought to be incorporated into the workings of the partnership committees. In Birmingham, as has been said, that is not likely to happen as things stand, because the partnership committee is run on purely partisan lines.
For all the Opposition's talk about participation, for all their furtive grinding of their party political axe, not one hon. Gentleman mentioned that working people ought to be involved. The phrase does not do come easily to their minds. They mean their own kind, doing their hellishly patronising subversive job among the British people in the devastated cities.

1517

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am not sure that I shall be able to do justice to the speeches which have been made this evening. I am quite certain that I shall not do justice to the speech made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) judging by the comments that he made on the responses that I made to his remarks in Committee. Nevertheless, I shall try.
A great many of the remarks made during the debate have been extremely interesting and have been based upon personal experience by hon. Members on both sides of the House of voluntary organisations.
I hope that the hon. Member for Wavertree, the mover of the new clause, will recognise that though from time to time he doubted my credentials concerning voluntary organisations and presumably those of the Government in general, many people besides himself have an active interest and belief in voluntary organisations and the part that they can and should play in the community.
The White Paper illustrates this point in paragraph 34 which says Involving local people is both a necessary means to the regeneration of the inner areas and an end in its own right. That is a statement of Government policy. However, we are being asked by the hon. Member for Wavertree to bring in a law on this subject. Do we want a clause written into this Bill—a Bill which has a limited purpose as part of our urban policy? Do we need a clause about voluntary organisations in a Bill which does not purport to cover the whole range of our present policy.
The purposes of the Bill are quite clear. They relate to grants and loans and similar matters which may be of use and value to local authorities in seeking to encourage local industry in their areas. I do not believe that it is desirable to have in this Bill provisions relating to the value of voluntary organisations. If we do not include such a provision, it does not mean that we are denying the value and importance, of such organisations. Indeed, our commitment to such organisations is contained in Part IV of 1518 the White Paper which from paragraph 34 onwards deals with this topic.
A great many things have been said in this debate about how we should seek to involve voluntary organisations. When dealing with partnerships or programme authorities, it is important to recognise that the meaning of the word "partnership", as we are using it, is first and foremost a partnership between statutory authorities. It is a recognition of the fact that if we are to tackle the deep-seated problems of Liverpool, Hackney and Islington, and the docklands area we need concerted action by the statutory organisations which have statutory responsibilities to fulfil.
Perhaps it is a criticism of Government in the past that the statutory organisations with responsibilities and powers have not worked closely enough together and not in a sufficiently co-ordinated fashion. The use of the word "partnership" has also been applied to the relationship between the statutory organisations and the voluntary ones. Indeed, private enterprise, the trade unions and other organisations all have a part to play. However, this does not mean that it is necessary to formalise that relationship by seeing that representatives of the voluntary organisations sit on the partnership committees. If hon. Members complain about bureaucracy of partnership committees, what worse bureaucracy would arise if a large number of representatives of voluntary organisations were also sit on those committees?
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) stressed that we should not try to bureaucratise the voluntary organisations by enmeshing them in the machine, as he put it. How right he was to make that comment. I have heard some people talk of the need to harness the energies of the voluntary organisations as though that was our objective. But I want to release those energies and give those organisations the opportunity to make their contribution in a positive and realistic fashion.
There would be difficulties in trying to harness those organisations or in ensuring that they are represented on the partnership committees. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) pointed 1519 to the great variety of voluntary organisations that exist, each with a specific contribution to make.
The trouble with the new clause is that it requires local authorities to co-opt representatives of non-statutory bodies on to any committee or working party concerned with the implementation of the Bill, even if the only non-statutory organisations in those areas may be such bodies as the Boy Scouts and the Red Cross. I am not decrying the value of those organisations—I was once a boy scout myself and have great respect for the scouts—but they may not be relevant to the particular committee or working party. In terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, they would have to have representatives sitting on the committee. We cannot formalise these things by legislation. But there is a real problem—it has been recognised by several hon. Members—concerning the relationships between voluntary and statutory bodies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke about the need to build a bridge between local authorities and voluntary organisations. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to the need to try to reduce the conflict between officials and people. This is a real and difficult problem. There is undoubtedly an element of suspicion among voluntary organisations as to what statutory bodies are up to. Indeed, to some degree one finds in some cases that officials and local authority members have a suspicion and a dislike of the activities of voluntary organisations.
I believe that these bodies complement one another in a very real way, and I am hopeful that within the partnership arrangements, and in the arrangements that I hope will grow and develop in programme and other designated districts, it will be possible to recognise that complementary relationship, because they have a real part to play if they are working together.
It does not just mean consulting the voluntary organisation. It means their active participation in whatever is going on, and making the contribution they feel they can make, but not because it happens to fit into somebody else's plan. The contribution should be made because it is the one that the people concerned 1520 feel to be relevant to the needs of their own area.
Although I cannot possibly accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause and cannot recommend the House to do so, I wish to underline to him quite sincerely that I have a great deal of sympathy with what he was saying. I do not think that the problem is an easy one. The hon. Gentleman recognises the immediate difficulty that we are facing—that the partnership authorities have to produce programmes by this summer. Although the partnership authorities are doing everything they can to consult, there is a timescale problem.
I am absolutely certain that as time goes on there will be a greater and greater measure of participation and involvement of voluntary organisations in the development of their own areas. I am also quite sure that the role of local councillors in maintaining a kind of link between voluntary and statutory bodies, as was pointed out, is absolutely crucial.
Local councillors are to a large degree volunteers, and therefore surely they, in their contact with their wards or the areas which they represent, have an important and crucial part to play in ensuring that the views of people at the grass roots are brought to bear upon those officials and other representatives who are making decisions at the top.
But essentially I am sure that the right relationship is one between the local authority and the voluntary organisations, rather than trying to involve the voluntary organisations in the partnership, which has the very specific purpose of bringing together the statutory bodies which need to co-operate and co-ordinate their activities more closely.

§ Mr. Finsberg
I hope that the House enjoyed the all too brief contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). He may only represent one-ninth of the city of Liverpool but he proves that quality is better than quantity. We certainly had a fascinating discourse from him. Occasionally I think that he gets slightly carried away and is perhaps trying to provide, via Hansard, two or three theses on the theory of voluntary bodies. I hope that one day he may actually find himself sitting at a desk, forced to put into operation some of the ideas that he has put to us both here and in Committee.

1521

§ Mr. Steen
I should like that.

§ Mr. Finsberg
It would be a salutary experience not merely for him but for any officials who had to work for him.
My hon. Friend, in his speech, which certainly championed the non-statutory bodies, said that there was a need to involve those persons most closely concerned, whether they be—as I understood his speech—councillors, boy scouts or trade unionists.
It was fair that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who did not hear the first part of that gem of a speech, should intervene and at a later stage point out the dangers of creating a non-statutory bureaucracy. He is perfectly right—it can happen. None the less, I do not see why, because this has happened in one of two areas, one should necessarily assume that it will happen everywhere else. I want to touch on this in a moment.
10.15 p.m.
The previous occupant of the Chair was trying to suggest that even Santa Claus might be consulted. He indicated that he was th only person left out of the long catalogue of names that is being considered. But I have a feeling that in his saintly guise as St. Nicholas he might be above those things. Therefore, I do not think that Santa Claus can be considered.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) spoke about the problem of a difference of opinion between the leader of the Conservative-controlled Birmingham Council and my hon. Friend. Indeed, he highlighted very fairly that there must always be a difference of view when one looks at these problems from the standpoint of one's own city. But where the hon. Gentleman did perhaps make an error was when he asked, "There are 30, 40 or 50 voluntary bodies. How is one to select?" He suggested that we would find a committee overburdened with representatives of every non-statutory body.
I should like to quote an example—which I know fairly well—which does work. That is the Camden Council of Social Service which was created at the time of the amalgamation of the three London boroughs of Hampstead, Holborn and St. Pancras. Every voluntary body within the three original boroughs agreed 1522 to have this umbrella organisation. It is consulted frequently, with great success, by the borough council. It can work. It is not bureaucratised. I do not think anyone would feel that in any way the description applied by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) could bear any resemblance. It was a nonsensical intervention which did the hon. Gentleman and the House no credit. I shall ignore the rest of what he said.
But this sort of umbrella organisation could provide a valuable opportunity for the Minister to draw these voluntary bodies into consultation. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) put a lot of stress upon the bi-partisan approach that in the end will achieve a great deal. I think the Minister will agree that with limited exceptions we have had a bi-partisan approach to this Bill. There are no party political advantages in trying to help the deprived. One ought not artificially to try to create them, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak did.
However, I shall leave his nonsense and continue for a moment to quote from the very good letter—which I am sure the Minister has seen—from the National Council of Social Service, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree by constraint of time was able to mention only a few selected extracts. This letter, which was dated 24th April, said that it had been sent to the Secretary of State and that certain proposals had been made to him in the memorandum that he received last week. The letter went on to say that there was a great danger that unless those living in our inner city areas are allowed to participate in solving their own problems, they will become yet further disillusioned. It goes on: We need to act now or the opportunity afforded by the inner city programme will be lost". The letter sets out a series of guidelines of the sort of people who ought to be involved. It includes trade unions, the local communities, the voluntary organisations and the business communities because, as the Minister said, if the inner urban areas project is to be a success, we have to bring in private enterprise. 1523 Without its involvement the jobs will not be created.
Equally, therefore, we need to involve the local people who will themselves have the offer of jobs and who will have to see a certain amount of disturbance whilst properties are converted, with the noise and the dust that that involves. They are bound to feel that "they"—those in Whitehall and in their respective city halls—are implementing measures without actually involving them. I agree that there are local councillors to do this, as the hon. Member for Ladywood pointed out. However, having served, like the hon. Member for Ladywood, in local government for a very long time, I know that when a councillor goes back to his electors seeking re-election he still hears complaints that his electors are not being represented even by their elected councillor. Too often they feel that they are not consulted about decisions which count.
The new clause may be inelegantly worded, and I have no doubt that it is less expertly worded than the Minister's draftsman could manage. The Minister said that he did not want to bring into the statute the marvellous work of the voluntary bodies. Apparently he does not want to say anything in the Bill about them. He pointed out that they were fully recognised in Part IV of the White Paper. However, in many cases the White Paper has not been translated into the Bill.
I must remind the Minister that when the Secretry of State introduced the White

Division No. 192]	AYES	[10.23 p.m.
Brooke, Peter	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Brotherton, Michael	Lawrence, Ivan	Skeet, T. H. H.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Neubert, Michael	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Durant, Tony	Pattie, Geoffrey
Grist, Ian	Penhaligon, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hooson, Emlyn	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Mr. Robin Hodgson and
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Sainsbury, Tim	Mr. Andrew Mackay.

NOES
Allaun, Frank	Coleman, Donald	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Armstrong, Ernest	Conlan, Bernard	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Atkinson, Norman	Cowans, Harry	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Crawshaw, Richard	Ford, Ben
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Forrester, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cryer, Bob	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Boardman, H.	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	George, Bruce
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Golding, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Dormand, J. D.	Gourlay, Harry
Buchan, Norman	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Buchanan, Richard	Duffy, A. E. P.	Grant, John (Islington C)
Cant, R. B.	Dunnett, Jack	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Cartwright, John	Dewar, Donald	Harper, Joseph
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Edge, Geoff	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Cohen, Stanley	Evans, John (Newton)	Hooley, Frank

1524

§ Paper, he made specific reference to the need to involve commerce. However, it was only when the Minister moved an amendment tonight that we got commerce out of the White Paper and into the Bill. In the same way, the Bill should pay some heed to involving voluntary organisations. How that can be done, I readily admit that I do not know. The Minister said that he accepted that there was some force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree, but I would have been much happier if he had gone on to say that because there was an aspect which was not covered in the proposed new clause, he suggested that it be withdrawn, in which case he would undertake in another place to move a new clause which recognised in the statute the position of the voluntary bodies and which gave them an opportunity to play their part in the proposed set-up.

§ I do not feel that the Minister has gone as far as he wanted to go. He certainly has not gone far enough to cover the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree. For that reason, I do not feel that I am in a position to offer any advice to my hon. Friend about whether to withdraw his clause. He will have heard the Minister. He will have heard the other arguments which appeared germane. He must make up his own mind about what to do.

§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 92.

Horam, John	Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hunter, Adam	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Tinn, James
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Newens, Stanley	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Oakes, Gordon	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lambie, David	Palmer, Arthur	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Lamond, James	Parry, Robert	Ward, Michael
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Pavitt, Laurie	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Loyden, Eddie	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Whitlock, William
Luard, Evan	Rowlands, Ted	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
McCartney, Hugh	Sever, John	Woodall, Alec
McElhone, Frank	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Woof, Robert
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Young, David (Bolton E)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Spearing, Nigel
Marks, Kenneth	Spriggs, Leslie	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Stallard, A. W.	Mr. Ted Graham and
Maynard, Miss Joan	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley	Mr. Alf Bates.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)