HC Deb 21 July 1978 vol 954 cc1043-50

Lords amendment: no. 3, in page 3, line 39, leave out "industrial".

Mr. Guy Barnett

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine)

With this amendment we may also take Lords amendments nos. 4, 5. 9 and 15 to 20.

Mr. Barnett

This set of amendments will enable designated district authorities to declare as improvement areas parts of their districts that are predominantly commercial. They thus extend the improvement area concept that was originally developed to deal with older industrial areas to cover run-down commercial areas.

When the amendments were discussed in another place my noble Friend Lady Birk indicated that we did not think the works for which aid can be given—landscaping, demolition and so on—would be so relevant to commercial areas as to industrial areas. But on further consideration we have concluded that there may be sonic areas in which the powers can be useful and we are content to let the amendments stand. In looking at proposals for improvement areas, particularly commercial ones, we shall need to be well satisfied before approving them that they are areas in which normal market forces will not lead to appropriate improvement.

These amendments were supported on all sides when moved in another place and I hope that they will receive equal support here.

Mr. Alison

I tried to discern the sparkle in the Minister's eye as he moved this amendment. It is a curious volte-face by the Government in view of the position they took throughout the previous stages of this Bill, in the White Paper, in the Secretary of State's Second Reading speech, in the Divisions that took place after extended debates in Committee and in the expressions of opinion by Ministers in another place—all of which repeatedly emphasised that priority in this Bill must be given to industrial devel- opment and industrial needs. The view was that commercial aspects were secondary and should not have the same priority, and indeed would be counter-productive in their impact on development in the assisted areas.

Despite all that, the Minister today, at this late stage of the Bill, has blandly told us that we should forget all the decisive arguments against this kind of change because the Government now accept it. This is one of the clearest indications one could possibly have that the Government are determined to get this Bill, even though their amendments here undermine the whole philosophy behind the Bill as presented on Second Reading because they need it fundamentally as an electoral measure.

Let me remind the Minister of one or two things that were said on previous stages. When the Secretary of State for the Environment on Second Reading, commented specifically on a proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that commercial considerations should feature alongside and be equal with industrial considerations and factors, the right hon. Gentleman said: I think that it is right to reflect our attempt to attract industry and retain it in these areas —and give a general thrust of assistance to industry policy—in the context of this Bill.— [Official Report, 9th February 1978; Vol. 943. c. 1694–5.] In other words, industry was to be the first priority.

Then the Minister will remember vividly a debate in Committee on 7th March when my hon. Friend the Member for Acton tabled an amendment to insert specifically the words "commercial and" before the word "industrial". The Under-Secretary of State for Industry said: It would be anomalous if assistance were to go to all commercial activities in the inner cities, including inner cities in the non-assisted areas, but not to those activities in the assisted areas generally, but which must continue to have priority.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7th March 1978; c. 246.] The Minister was advising the Committee not to allow commercial considerations to be written into the Bill because it would have the anomalous result that one would be giving assistance to commerce in the non-assisted parts of urban areas which would be denied to assisted areas—an important consideration. The Minister refused to accept the amendment and caused a Division to take place which the Government won. They again threw out the concept of the introduction of commercial considerations.

We then had the events in the other place where the Minister firmly turned down the amendment moved to insert the word "commercial". But in a later debate, on 10th July, when an amendment sought to leave out the word "industrial"—which is the amendment we are now considering—the Minister, as reported in column 1314 of Lords Hansard of 10th July, gave three specific reasons why she was not happy that "commercial" in this negative sense should be introduced into the Bill by removing the word "industrial". Her point has not been answered by the Minister today in this House. He has simply said that everything the Government have said on this matter in the past was wrong. The Minister implied "I shall not explain why we are taking this step. We simply intend to lie down and let all these amendments be made".

It is a paradoxical situation. It can only suggest that the Government are determined to get this Bill through, even though the whole philosophy and purpose of the Bill has been fundamentally altered. The Minister may wish to comment on that. The Bill now falls more into line with what the Opposition were pressing, and we welcome that, but we cannot understand why the Minister made us divide in Committee and why so many column inches of Hansard were taken up in arguing the opposite case. We cannot understand why we are expected to accept these amendments without any explanation from the Government showing why they considered this step to be wrong initially.

Finally, I wish to deal with a technical point. Will the Minister advise the House why in a number of crucial and key places the word "industrial" has now been dropped from the Bill—properly, in our view—but why it still appears in one or two places, although not in the text of the Bill? The word appears in the schedule at page 11. Line 2 contains the title "industrial improvement area", and line 3 the phrase Procedure for declaring area to be industrial improvement area. So within the first three lines of the Schedule the word "industrial" appears twice. The first appearance of the word in the body of the schedule is in line 10 where the deletion is proposed by the Government. In clause 3, on page 3, line 36, there appears the title "Industrial improvement areas" and that has been left as it stands. The phrase "improvement area" appears in the text of the Bill for the first time on page 3, line 39, from where it is to be deleted.

12.30 p.m.

So we have the curious situation in which the interpretation clause on page 10 will now refer to industrial improvement area', in relation to a designated district authority, has the meaning given by section 3(2) above;". It is no longer to be "industrial improvement area", but simply "improvement area". Clause 3 is entitled "Industrial improvement areas" but there is to be no further reference to "industrial" thereafter. Is the deletion a technicality by which the title is left unamended when the text is amended? It seems slightly misleading and the Bill may be defective if all references are not deleted.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)

The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) is obviously getting a little nervous about a possible General Election. Nevertheless, we on the Government side would like to know the reason for the switch in the Bill. In particular, I should like to know what financial difference it will cause. Have the Government attempted to assess, by reference to local authorities, the likely implications of the change and of the additional expenditure which is to be incurred?

I do not oppose the change, but we are entitled to know more about it. We should like to know which cities are most likely to be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) is here today. He and I represent areas which are likely to be affected by the Bill. We have been taken aback a little by a change of this nature at this late stage. The Opposition are getting some fun out of it, and I cannot blame them, because it is not clear why the change is being made and what its practical effects will be.

Mr. Guy Barnett

Let me deal first with the technical point raised by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). The reason for the apparent selectivity of amendments is that the side notes and headings are not part of the Bill. Those words will be altered in line with the amendments that I hope the House will now agree to. I hope that the hon. Member is satisfied that there is no difficulty or problem here.

The hon. Member was being a little unfair, not to say a little churlish, in what he said. He will recognise that during the passage of the Bill the Government have attempted—this does not always happen with legislation—to listen to the arguments that have been advanced from both sides and, so far as possible, to improve the Bill in the light of them. Since it went into Committee in this House it has been improved as a consequence of those arguments. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. We would not be making the amendments if we had not been convinced that there was a place for some assistance where commercial development might be involved.

The hon. Member quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as saying that he saw industry as having the priority. I stick to that. I virtually admitted it when I introduced this brief debate. It continues to be the case. In industrial improvement areas there might be commercial properties. The more we thought of that fact the more we felt it was necessary not to define improvement areas too narrowly in a way that would cast doubt on our ability to assist commerce, as well as industry, where redevelopment work was proceeding.

That is why we have now proposed that the House should agree to the amendment. I insist that the purpose is still to regard the development of industry as of prime importance. Such action as my right hon. Friend takes in improving industrial improvement areas will continue to be taken with that fact borne in mind.

I do not think that I need to deal with any other point except to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) that the Bill does not by itself involve any increase in expenditure. I stress "by itself". The purpose of the Bill is to give certain local authorities in special areas and local authorities that will be designated under the Bill certain powers to assist industry, although the Bill does not propose increases in the expenditure of public money.

Mr. Lee

I follow that, but presumably there is some purpose behind this late change. Presumably there have been consultations, and presumably the local authorities—I appreciate that their political composition might change—have given my hon. Friend some indication of the expected increase that this change is likely to make in their disbursements. Can he say something about that?

Mr. Barnett

No, I have had no such indication. It is much too soon to get any reasonable assessment of the global sums that are likely to be spent as a result of this small change. These decisions will be made initially as a consequence of initiatives by local authorities and partnership committees. At this stage it would be most difficult to estimate the increase in expenditure that could arise.

Mr. Eyre

Having listened to the embarrassed nature of the Minister's explanation, particularly to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), I must conclude that there is a deeper reason for the Government deciding at such a late stage to stop resisting this amendment, which has been put forward so forcefully so many times during the Bill's progress.

It seems clear to me that the acceptance of the amendment in the way that the Minister has done this morning gives the game away. The reason must be that the Government have decided that it is no longer possible to cover up the relatively trivial nature of the aid that will be made available under the Bill.

So that no one shall be misled, the cumulative effect of the relevant factors must be understood in assessing the value and quantity of aid. First, a limited, very small sum is available for the whole purposes of the Bill. Secondly, there are long lists of names of towns proposed as beneficiaries. No fewer than 43 boroughs and towns having industrial areas, which is the prime reason for choice are named. Thirdly, there is the fact that the major part of the limited funds available is to be allocated to seven partnership areas. Fourthly, even within those selected areas —the Greater Manchester and West Midlands metropolitan county are examples —the annual amount that may possibly be received under the Bill is the equivalent only of a 1p rate product.

When all those factors are understood and taken into account, it can be seen that the help available is tiny, even to the most privileged partnership areas, the first category boroughs and towns in the aid league. Also, the help available to the second league of programme areas is hardly noticeable. Those poor boroughs and towns in the third league that the Government have established will receive so little help that, when judged against the background of their problems, it is hardly worth mentioning.

Therefore, I perfectly well understand why the Minister has been so embarrassed and diffident today about this change. It is because he realises that the total benefit in aid available under this Bill is so small, has been spread in so many directions, that a little further spreading in this way will make no difference. The whole matter is of very trivial consequence, which is a poor prospect for all those large towns and cities with such serious problems. The Bill makes hardly any contribution to dealing with their problems. They will have to find solutions out of their own enterprise. That is the true reason why the Minister has so casually accepted this further spreading at such a late stage.

Mr. Guy Barnett

May I merely say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will need the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Barnett

With the leave of the House, may I say that everything the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) has just uttered is flatly contradicted by his political colleagues in Birmingham and every other partnership authority of which I can think?

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

Back to
Forward to