HC Deb 17 August 1991 vol 195 cc471-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

11.59 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)

At one point this evening, I thought that we would be discussing the East Newcastle quayside development at one of the breakfast meetings of which the urban development corporation is so fond. I am pleased, therefore, that we are able to have the debate at a relatively reasonable hour of the night.

I have substantially rewritten the speech that I had intended to make when I was first lucky enough to draw a place and to secure an Adjournment debate. I had not realised how powerful Adjournment debates can be. The Government first suggested that some matters were sub judice and that the debate could not therefore take place. I am grateful for the fact that it was decided that the debate could be held despite there being some matters before the court. I shall not trespass on those matters. It is perfectly possible for me to make my points without doing so. I know that the Minister will understand why, when I approach those matters, I deal with them in a more general way than I might otherwise have done.

The changes that have taken place over the past few days have been quite surprising. First, the parliamentary questions that I had tabled, which the Minister orginally told me could not be answered because the matter was sub judice, have now miraculously been answered—or the majority of them answered—in letters to me from the Minister. I suspect that that happened solely because I had secured an Adjournment debate. The replies are perfectly reasonable and satisfactory, and I have no quarrel with the points that the Minister makes, although I wonder why he could not simply have answered my questions in a sensible, reasoned way in the first place.

Secondly, my tabling of those questions and the prospect of the debate have prompted vigorous public debate in the local newspapers on Tyneside. I suspect that it was the prospect of this debate that compelled the chairman of the urban development corporation, the Economic League's Mr. Paul Nicholson, to issue the justification of his behaviour that appeared in The Journal today.

The third reason that has led me in some respects to adjust what I proposed to say is a disappointing one for me. I have heard from the Audit Commission that it cannot investigate the financial arrangements of the urban development corporation because it has no competence in these matters. However, I have had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, and I am satisfied with the assurances that he has given me concerning the disclosure of information relating to the financial affairs of urban development corporations. I think that Labour will come to power before we get any investigations from this Government, but I am quite content to wait, because a Labour Government can only be less than a year away.

Although I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has divulged, it reflects no credit on him, the Department of the Environment or the urban development corporation that that information has had to be dragged out of the Department through the mechanism of an Adjournment debate. There was nothing contentious about the information; it should have been provided voluntarily.

I propose to do two things in the debate. First, I shall say a little about what is wrong with the present development and the way in which the developers are proceeding and then I shall suggest a series of initiatives—I hope constructive—which I hope will provide a solution, break the present deadlock and perhaps even diminish some of the animosity that has surrounded this affair.

Let me make this absolutely clear: I do not oppose the redevelopment of the quayside area—far from it; I welcome that redevelopment. What I oppose is the existing development and the way in which it was arrived at. I am opposed to the bullish way in which the urban development corporation on Tyneside went about the preparation of the development. The Newcastle quayside development affair encapsulates all that is worst about the urban development corporation structure. I cannot understand why the urban development corporation decided to choose a developer first and then set out to try to acquire all the land from others who were told that they were being kept out of the development consortia. In those circumstances, why on earth should those who are not part of the development consortia voluntarily agree to being kicked off their land?

It is not my view that everyone who supports the urban development corporation is ill-motivated. There are those who genuinely believe that using the planning and compulsory purchase powers of the urban development corporation to push Mr. Godfrey Bradman's business interests is in east Newcastle's best interests. There are others who are less honourably motivated. It strikes many in the Labour party as a remarkable coincidence that the different developers on three separate sites north of the River Tyne have three things in common. I am referring to the Closegate site, the separate east quayside site and the Cosalt development in north Tyneside. The three things that they have in common are, first, that their proposed developments are hideously ugly; secondly, that they cost the public purse an awful lot of money in subsidies; and, thirdly, that the favoured developers are all staunch supporters of the Conservative party. Indeed, in north Tyneside, the favoured developer is a Member of the House.

These issues are highly political in the north. Both sides will make the urban development corporation an election issue. It will be an issue of Labour v. Conservative. In the Northern region, there is Labour resistance to the urban development corporation. There are also regional quislings. I regret that the debate on such important issues has been conducted in this manner because on economic development issues generally there is, in the Northern region, as bipartisan an approach as it is possible to find anywhere in the country. No region has done more to help itself through difficult times. That has involved co-operation at regional level between the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress, and between private industry and developers and the public sector, including Labour-controlled local authorities. I very much welcome that way of doing things in the region and regret the fact that what has happened over the quayside scheme does not resemble the way in which we normally conduct our affairs.

I was told at the outset by the chief executive of the urban development corporation that I could make my views known on the development, just like any other member of the public. He has said publicly—I have the press cutting with me— The Member of Parliament for East Newcastle seems to work assiduously to chase jobs away from his constituency. That is a very political remark, which I very much resent. Apart from my work on the Labour Front Bench in this place, I spend more of my time on economic development matters in my constituency than on any other issue. If the Conservatives wish to say, "The Member of Parliament for East Newcastle chases jobs away from his constituency", I suggest that they go to the real industrialists in east Newcastle—the real employers there—such as NEI Parsons or Swan Hunter, the shipbuilders, and ask their management and work forces whether they believe that to be true. I know what the response would be—the management and work force would show those Conservative politicians the gate.

I said that I would say a little about the problems and then suggest some solutions. The overriding problem for the site—this is not the fault of the urban development corporation—is the traffic. The site is difficult, and whoever had been the economic development authority would have found the problem intractable and the site expensive to prepare for development. The site contains what has become a well-established traffic route from east to west, but it is an extraordinarily difficult route for traffic. I have here a report of the city engineers dealing with traffic issues which is dated June 1989. Since then the situation has deteriorated. The report says: The quayside route operates at the limits of its capacity, at peak times particularly. Its route experiences congestion and queues, mainly associated with the Guildhall roundabout … Traffic has little opportunity for transferring to other routes, the cathedral route being equally congested. Clearly, both routes are essential for east-west movement, and neither can carry the traffic off the other. What is also clear is that neither route can accommodate more traffic under current circumstances. Those circumstances will be familiar to everybody who knows Newcastle, so it was always going to be a priority to sort out the highways issues before determining the nature of the development that would sit alongside it, or before determining who the developer would be. The development corporation chose to put the cart before the horse. It chose first the developer, then the development that he proposed, and has said that it will not be altered. Then it set about solving the traffic problems. Things cannot be done that way round.

A number of other issues will have to be addressed before any solution to the impasse is arrived at. I do not like the shape of the development. The scheme is wrong, not just because of the traffic issues, although they are of paramount importance, but because there is too much of it. The Bradman proposal is substantially to overdevelop the site, and to do so in a way that is not redolent of Tyneside in any way. The Fine Art Commission has made this point and has also said that the development does nothing to parallel the natural and impressive sweep of the river. Its view should have been respected rather than being sneered at by supporters of the Godfrey Bradman scheme. They sneered because they know that they can use the powers of the development corporation to bulldoze all opposition and criticisms out of the way, regardless of the merit of those criticisms.

The Minister may find my next point a little more welcome. I am not opposed to bulk in the buildings that will eventually go up on the site. The buildings that have traditionally dominated the quayside area have always been of a considerable size, and as long as the chosen solution is not to put the skyline of Manhattan on the north bank of the Tyne, it will be possible to have reasonably sized buildings on the site. However, it depends on their function, particularly if that is to draw traffic-borne personnel on to the site at peak hours.

As the Member of Parliament, I have to insist that the relationship of that development to the two communities which neighbour it—St. Anne's and the much larger community of Byker—is handled sympathetically. There is no evidence that that has yet been addressed, and I pay tribute to two local councillors, Rick Anderson and Geordie Allison, for the important and constructive interest that they have taken in these matters. I pay tribute to the local community groups, and in particular the local clergy, for having tried to address some of these important questions. My corporate constituent, Procter and Gamble, is being treated roughly and has done nothing to deserve the rough handling that it is getting from the urban development corporation. I want to put that point on record.

I suppose that it is also right that I declare a pretty distant interest in the matter. I worked for Procter and Gamble in 1974 and 1975. I still have an enormous affection for it as a company, although if I thought that it was wrong, I would stand up and say so. It knows that. I cannot go any further on the Procter and Gamble issue, except to state general sympathy, because the other matters are before the courts.

Although the fight over the landholdings arises inevitably from the approach that the urban development corporation has adopted, it is destructive of the best interests of Newcastle and Tyneside. It has also obscured the real merits in the idea of business apartments that Mr. Lesser Landau has proposed. The idea should have been explored more thoroughly, because Newcastle is trying to develop a service base and get away from the perhaps too narrow industrial base that Tyneside has had to date.

The site is right for a project of business apartments because it has a central location. The idea is also right for the site because it would not—perhaps it is dangerous to say that it would not; it would be less likely to—generate the traffic flows about which I am so worried.

To suggest a way forward, I believe that the agreement that has been made with Bradman cannot endure. It is not a tenable basis on which to proceed. It is incomprehensible that a few influential figures in the Northern region defend it so passionately in the face of the pretty obvious evidence to the contrary. My view is that the legitimate private sector interests—I include Procter and Gamble and separately the Laing, Dysart, Landau consortium and Amec—must sit down and discuss some solution that is acceptable to them. They should then go to the public authorities—the city council and, while it is still there, the urban development corporation—with a solution that they have agreed and which takes into account the points that I listed earlier.

In that context, I welcome the arrival of Amec on the scene. It is a known quantity on Tyneside, through its subsidiary William Press, the offshore oil firm. It is a large employer. I have met representatives of it on two occasions and have been impressed by both their calibre and their sincerity. But Amec was not a party to the original competition. It is only natural that other developers who feel badly enough about the way in which they have been treated by the urban development corporation think that it is unfair that Amec should be able to buy into the development now.

There is a need to arrive at a consensus and make progress. The Bonapartist approach that the urban development corporation is adopting, especially the politically contentious approach, will not help. Consensus and compromise are the only viable way forward. It is the way in which we have normally handled our affairs in the Northern region. It is firmly my view that the Thatcherite solutions to such problems are not on. The Northern region will not have them and after the next general election we shall not have to do so.

12.17 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key)

It is my privilege and my challenge, as an inner cities Minister, to travel the length and breadth of Britain seeing for myself what is going on in our vibrant great cities, whether the cities of Merseyside, Salford and Manchester or, as in the past day and a half, the astonishing communities that I have found in Newcastle, Sunderland, Stockton and Middlesbrough, where there is all-party support for so much that is going on. Therefore, I find it a serious anti-climax to come back. from Newcastle tonight for this debate to find the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) seeking to justify his luddite tendencies, representing, as he does, prehistoric socialism. That seems quite out of character with what I have found in the north-east of England.

I acknowledge the presence for the debate tonight of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). I have enjoyed the hospitality of his constituents very recently. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the highly successful urban regeneration achievements of the Tyne and Wear development corporation. The hon. Gentlemen may recall that, when it was set up in 1987, the riverside areas of Tyne and Wear were suffering the legacy of the decline in the traditional industries which had once lined the banks of those famous rivers.

The long-standing industries of the area had left behind derelict, contaminated sites, which were extremely unsightly and which required a determined and single-minded effort to transform them into assets rather than liabilities. The Government saw areas such as this as requiring the purposeful attention of bodies whose main aim was the regeneration of their areas, and local people would have expected nothing less. I shall never forget meeting a delegation of local residents on the Scotswood estate in west Newcastle. Its members had a spirit of determination to overcome the problems left behind by history that I have found nowhere else.

Against that background, urban development corporations were set up. I acknowledge the muted presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has been a long-standing supporter of UDCs. It would be wrong also if I did not mention the strong support of and work done for the Tyne communities by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).

The Tyne and Wear development corporation has been extremely successful in its activities to date, not least because of its substantial local expertise. The majority of board members of the corporation are either born and bred in the north-east or have long connections with the area, unlike the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. Those local connections have been invaluable.

So far, the development corporation has been responsible for the creation of 2,500 jobs on Tyneside and Wearside, and there are commitments to provide a further 4,700. Over 350 housing units have been completed and 112,000 sq m of industrial and commercial floor space have been provided through developments promoted by the development corporation. In addition, private sector investment of £250 million has already been secured, with a further £500 million committed.

These achievements have not gone unnoticed. The Estates Times of 1 February reports: There is an unmistakable air of confidence and optimism in the region. The myth of Tyneside and Wearside being rundown backwaters of ailing traditional industries beset by rampant unemployment is slowly being eroded by the remarkable achievements seen in recent years. Without a doubt, the catalyst for this change has been the UDC". The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East said that he felt that these would be general election issues. They certainly will be. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman will be. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman had better start packing his bags. I suspect that he is at odds with the leader of his council and with most of the elected members of his constituency party. It has been represented to me from the north-east that people are exasperated by the hon. Gentleman, but dare not speak out.

Mr. Nicholas Brown

Dare not speak out—gosh!

A motion setting out the views that I have expressed was recently carried by my constituency party. I asked for it to be carried so that I knew that my views had its support. The motion was carried unanimously. There were no abstentions.

Mr. Key

What a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not have a word with the leader of the city council. He has told me: We have always regarded the relationship between the City Council and Tyne and Wear Development Corporation as a constructive one both on this scheme and generally. Councillor Beecham continued: At the time of selection of the preferred developer, the local authority was consulted and we stated that we could live with the choice of either NQD plc or Laing plc. He added: The local authority was also consulted on the NQD plc planning application which it was able to support. It has also taken a view strongly recommending rejection of a planning application of the alternative scheme. It seems that the hon. Gentleman has his wires crossed.

In the few minutes that are available to me, I shall deal with what is happening at east quayside. The east quayside project is the principal flagship of the development corporation. The site—about 25 acres of derelict and unsightly riverside—has been widely accepted as having outstanding potential because of its dramatic location and proximity to the city centre. Despite those locational advantages, it has remained undeveloped and derelict for more than 20 years, mainly because of the combined factors of land assembly problems and infrastructure. The development corporation was set up in May 1987 to deal with such sites, and the east quayside site has always had a high priority in the corporation's strategy.

In November 1987, the corporation invited three developers to prepare options for the site: Newcastle Quayside Developments—NQD—John Laing plc and Brookmount plc. Initial submissions were considered by the board in January 1988, but they did not contain sufficient detail. Therefore, each developer was given a further six months to prepare more detailed proposals and allowed up to £30,000 towards the cost of the exercise. Those more detailed proposals were received in June 1988 and were incorporated into a week-long exhibition, open to the public, in July 1988 that was held in the Guildhall on the Newcastle quayside.

Each proposal was examined to assess its outputs—jobs, houses, land reclaimed, office space and so on. Each was judged qualitatively on its ability to encourage regeneration of a wider area and careful thought was given to the need to maximise private investment.

NQD was selected as the preferred developer and I understand that the TWDC has entered into an agreement with it not to negotiate with any developer other than NQD until three months after legal proceedings connected with the compulsory purchase order have been concluded.

Mr. Nicholas Brown

rose—

Mr. Key

I would rather make progress to get to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's complaint.

The compulsory purchase order was confirmed in July 1990 following a public inquiry, but two of the original objectors to that order challenged the decision in the High Court and have now lodged further appeals with the Court of Appeal. I must be careful, therefore, not to say anything which might prejudice those legal proceedings.

I have already replied in writing to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, and I am delighted that he then found that he could rewrite parts of his speech. The hon. Member made much in his local press about the fact that he had persuaded his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, gG that a Labour Government would publish the financial dealings of the TWDC. That is pretty good, given that they are published anyway.

Each corporation has to prepare, in respect of each financial year, a statement of accounts complying with certain requirements of the Secretary of State. Those requirements are notified at the outset and remain in force from year to year unless changed. Each corporation is also required to produce annually a report to the Secretary of State on its activities in the preceding financial year. The report must include a copy of the audited statement of accounts. The Secretary of State lays this report before each House immediately before the summer recess.

Each urban development corporation must have an effective internal audit section to provide an independent appraisal of its system of financial control—a safeguard against fraud—and to ensure that the corporation operates with due regard to efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. The corporation's accounts and statement of accounts must be audited annually by external auditors appointed by the Secretary of State. Those auditors are expected, among other things, to examine value-for-money issues, and to draw the attention of the board and the Department to major issues, as well as submitting detailed points to management.

I must stress that there has been a close, consistent and friendly working relationship with the local authorities—all Labour-controlled. The willingness of those authorities to work alongside the corporation is quite unlike the stance and attitudes adopted by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. He has attacked the TWDC for a number of years, sometimes from opposing viewpoints. What are his motives? Is he engaged in a vendetta against the development corporation, or is it just prejudice? I hope that it is neither. Up and down the country, local authorities of all persuasions are now working in a spirit of co-operation, and the hon. Member's stance is at odds with this spirit. I believe that it is time to bury the hatchet.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.