AREAS WHICH MAY BE DESIGNATED URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREAS (Hansard, 3 November 1986)

§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I apologise for my debut being at the eleventh hour. However, as the House will know, last month 1 proposed a major new initiative to bring prosperity back to some of our northern cities by setting up four new urban development corporations. I do not want to debate that at length now because the House will be able to debate each proposal on the relevant order as it comes forward. I am sure that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), whom I congratulate on his re-election to the shadow Cabinet and retention of his portfolio, will welcome this initiative, especially after what he said two weeks' ago at the conference of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. He said: Blighted and derelict land has disfigured many urban centres for decades, prevented from development by cumbersome and often secretive planning and decision-making mechanisms. I entirely agree.
The amendment was moved in another place as soon as the Government had decided to seek to set up four further urban development corporations. One of these is proposed for Teesside. Under the legislation as it now stands, an urban development corporation in England may be set up only in a metropolitan county or in inner London. An urban development corporation may be set up anywhere in Scotland or Wales.
Teesside is within the non-metropolitan county of Cleveland. The amendment removes the English restrictions so that an urban development corporation can be set up anywhere in the kingdom where it is justified. This would give England equality of treatment with Scotland 773 and Wales. That was the Government's intention in the 1980 Act. The restriction for England was inserted when the legislation went through the House.
Although the scope of the amendment is narrow — whether I should be empowered to lay an order proposing the setting-up of an urban development corporation in a non-metropolitan area—whether there should be such a corporation will of course be for Parliament to decide. This is not the time or place to prejudge that question for any particular area. But I would not expect anyone to argue that the problems of Teesside are in any way less significant than those in metropolitan areas. It is clearly nonsense that this important means of tackling areas of major urban dereliction should not be available in Teesside. In due course I shall propose a Teesside UDC to the House, and the House will then have the opportunity to debate the principle.

§ Mr. Rooker
As the Secretary of State said, this is not an appropriate time or place for a debate on urban development corporations. They can be useful instruments, but they are not useful if their prime purpose is deliberately to bypass or ignore local authorities and the needs and wishes of the people. Our sincere wish and hope is that that will not happen. So far, there is no indication that it will, but we could not support the proposal if it did.
In certain areas, regeneration will not take place without a comprehensive strategy and a concentration of resources. It is ludicrous that, if an area falls outside a metropolitan area, based upon a map drawn years ago, it cannot benefit from a concentration of resources.
We are not interested in any diminution of democratic authority or control. In due course all the powers granted to UDCs will return to local authorities. We do not put a time limit or make a claim about that, but it will happen. It would be ludicrous to oppose the extension of this legislation, because of the identification of the tragic dereliction on Teesside. We shall have a wider debate on the issue at a more appropriate time. I do not enter a caveat on the proposal, nor do I welcome it. I just wanted to make a brief statement explaining that we understand the need to concentrate resources and to work out a comprehensive strategy.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I appreciate that the Government now recognise that the need for urban renewal and regeneration goes beyond the traditional confines of the inner cities. One of the most important statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his recent report was that the outer urban areas often experience greater deprivation than the inner urban areas. There are many such areas in this part of the country and elsewhere. Strategies for urban renewal and regeneration should apply anywhere.
I am the only hon. Member in the House at present who represents a constituency within one of the two existing urban development corporation areas. The history of the last five years shows that the UDCs bring both advantages and disadvantages. There is inadequate co-ordination in south London, and Southwark in particular. I hope that the experience of those five years will be learnt as the Secretary of State formulates his plans for the four new UDC areas. We shall have an opportunity to debate the urban development corporations. We look forward to that opportunity and welcome it.
Two principles are more strongly argued and upheld in the proposals than before. First, the new urban 774 development corporations are to act in partnership with the local authorities as well as with the private sector to bring in additional money. So far the urban development corporations have often seemed to act over the head of, and not in partnership with, local authorities. Secondly, consultation with the people who live there should be started from the beginning. One problem with the London Docklands Development Corporation was that at the beginning there was an inadequate framework of consultation with local people to enable the existing communities to be reinforced, upheld, strengthened and supported. I hope that the proposals will change that, and that the Secretary of State will respond to the anxieties that have been horn out of the experience of our two development corporations. A strategy is now needed to do much more for urban regeneration and renewal of our devastated economy.

§ Mr. Robert B. Jones
I rise briefly to support the Government in this move. It has long been an anomaly that all areas needing urban regeneration were thought to be in the metropolitan counties or in London. Cleveland is certainly ripe for this initiative. I was once a parliamentary candidate in Cleveland and I have retained my affection and links with the area. I wish to place on record my tribute to the leader of the Conservatives on Stockton council, Councillor Laurie Wild, who has done much to campaign for this measure. I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State places the appropriate order before the House, new prosperity will come to that area.

§ Mr. Ridley
I wish to respond briefly to the points which have been made. I thank the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) for welcoming the proposal. It is a major proposal. It involves considerable expense, and so its importance must not be underestimated.
I wish to reply to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Southwark and Bermondsey who made almost the same points about the proposal. My reply is that there are representatives of local authorities on the London Docklands Development Corporation and on the Merseyside Development Corporation. That could be taken as a precedent, but local authority members should not dominate the hoard of any new urban development corporation. Every encouragement will be given to local authorities that wish to cooperate with a UDC. But, as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, some local authorities have appeared to try to frustrate this sort of development and in that case we shall push on. We are determined that nothing shall the stop the redevelopment of these areas. If a local authority wants to help, it will be very welcome, but if it does not the work must still be done.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey talks about the people. This amendment is about Teesside, and the area we have in mind does not have one inhabitant. It is completely derelict on both sides of the river. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West will know it well. If anybody argued that anyone should be stopped from developing that area, he would be off his head.
We really do mean business in establishing the development corporations and in putting money into 775 them. We shall make a determined effort to bring back the sort of conditions under which people want to build houses, factories, shops, leisure centres—every sort of development — and to give every chance for economic recovery in those areas.
I confess to a slight prejudice in this matter, coming myself from the north-east. This is the only way, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey acknowledges, to concentrate and co-ordinate the efforts of all Government and local government departments, with the necessary resources to achieve the rejuvenation that the House wants to see.