§ 16. Sir W. Elliottasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned effect and cost of the comprehensive community programme now established in Gateshead; and whether that conflicts in any way with the new Government programmes for Newcastle and the surrounding area.
§ Mr. ArmstrongThe Gateshead comprehensive community programme was planned as a means of securing a co-ordinated approach to the problems of urban deprivation on a district-wide basis. The cost to this Department is some £35,000, a year, which is the cost of funding a small team attached to Gateshead metropolitan borough and working on the CCP. The Newcastle-Gateshead partnership has similar aims but is concerned with the problems of a defined inner area. The two approaches are complementary rather than conflicting.
§ Sir W. ElliottI accept that the two programmes are complementary, but does the Minister agree that the Gateshead scheme, although small, is still costing the taxpayer a good deal of money? Have not such schemes been superseded by the partnership arrangement?
§ Mr. ArmstrongThat is not my experience. I have responsibility for both the partnership scheme and the CCP. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that in Gateshead there are pockets of deprivation throughout the district. The work which is being undertaken is assisting the partnership proposals and is complementary to them.
§ Mr. SpeakerI call Mr. Steen, and I remind the House that the Question relates to Newcastle.
§ Mr. SteenWill the Minister explain why he is still spending so much money on research into the problems of inner cities when £100 million of Government money has already been spent on this topic? Is it not about time that he got on with a bit of action?
§ Mr. ArmstrongI think that the present Government have made considerable progress in getting on with solving the problem of deprivation in the inner cities.