Urban Development Corporations

HC Deb 04 December 1985 vol 88 cc291-3

9. Mr. Latham

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to make orders under section 134 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 setting up any further urban development corporations.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

None at the moment.

Mr. Latham

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us believe that these corporations could bring speedy, effective and non-bureaucratic action to tackle inner city deprivation? Will he look at this matter again, because, apart from anything else, such corporations would attract substantial private sector money?

Mr. Baker

I am examining this matter, because my hon. Friend is right. The London Docklands Development Corporation is conducting the most successful recovery of a derelict part of an inner city, and we have every right to be proud of it. So far it has attracted over £1 billion of private investment into the area. There is another development on Merseyside. This year I am providing resources of £95 million for the two corporations.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Does the Secretary of State accept that while everything that the two development corporations have done is not all bad, their greatest flaw is that there is no democratic accountability? Will he confirm what he said on the "London Programme" on Friday —that where there is very little derelict land, the structure of urban development corporations would be highly inappropriate? Surely what is needed is confirmation by the Government of faith in the inner city, and faith in local government. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he needs to support local government in tackling the problems of other deprived areas rather than giving such problems to appointees of his Department, who are not accountable?

Mr. Baker

Our faith in the inner cities is demonstrated by our commitment to them. Since we have been in office, we have put £1–5 billion into the inner cities through the urban programme, derelict land grants and urban development corporations. That is a substantial commitment, and there is no doubt that the development corporations have been a success. I reiterate what I said on the programme. The corporations have been particularly effective in the areas where there is much dereliction and where a great job has to be done. That job is now being done. Before the LDDC was set up in the east end of London, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the councils could not agree, the GLC could not agree and there was nothing. The record speaks for itself.

Mr. Squire

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the achievements of the LDDC, which he rightly extols, have been effected in the face of a persistent and consistent campaign by the Left in those areas against everything that the corporation is trying to do? Will he comment on that aspect, given the rather quiet attitude of the Labour party?

Mr. Baker

One of the councils supportive of the LDDC has already come out in favour of the Canary wharf development. Some elements have constantly criticised, but such criticism is against the interests of the area. There is real regeneration in east London, and we should be proud of that.

Mr. Spearing

Irrespective of the merits of any one development, does the Secretary of State agree that one of the so-called popularities of the development corporations is that they have the unique power of selling public land together with planning permission, in certain cases without the normal safeguards of a public inquiry? Does he now agree that, irrespective of its merits, the Canary wharf development in the West India docks could and probably would have an enormous strategic impact on Greater London in general, and east London in particular? Why will he not permit a public inquiry?

Mr. Baker

I have already decided not to call in that development. In making that decision I had to consider all the various factors. We are talking about the creation of a new financial centre and mobile investment. If it is not to be built in the docklands area, it will not be built in another part of London. Instead, it will go to Frankfurt, Brussels, Amsterdam or elsewhere. The project is the largest civil investment programme for many years. It is a £1.5 billion programme that will provide 10 million sq ft of space and probably 40,000 to 50,000 jobs. I cannot take the risk of losing that sort of opportunity.

Mr. Dorrell

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of London docklands is that the urban development corporations have put the emphasis on urban development, not on party politics? Is that not an example that we should repeat in other inner city areas throughout the country?

Mr. Baker

My hon. Friend is right. The corporations have been extremely good instruments, and we are assessing their effectiveness. It may be that we can use other forms of agency, such as private trusts, for the rehabilitation of certain derelict sites or areas in other parts of our cities. I am sure that the entire country and all political parties have a great deal to learn from the success that we are experiencing with the two corporations.

Dr. John Cunningham

Whatever the successes or otherwise of the corporations, how does the Secretary of State expect focal authorities to tackle the problems in their areas when, for example, the Government have reduced housing investment by 69 per cent. since they came to office? How does he expect local authorities to tackle the problems that face them when there has been a persistent reduction in rate support grant, which cumulatively exceeds about £16 billion? Why have the Government been able to find more than £22 billion in tax reductions for higher rate taxpayers since they came to office, while persistently withdrawing resources from inner cities?

Mr. Baker

If, as I believe, the hon. Gentleman is saying that the problems of the inner cities can be resolved by throwing more resources at them, I must ask him to consider the record of the 1960s and 1970s, when vast sums were literally thrown at the inner cities. It was during that period that the slums and the problems with which we are now dealing were built. That is generally agreed as an analysis. We must target moneys much more effectively, and that is the process in which I am engaged. We must find ways of introducing private sector money more effectively. That is another important element.