HC Deb 09 December 1992 vol 215 cc827-8
1. Mr. Mudie:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the local authority associations on the future of the urban programme.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood)

I have received a formal representation from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and several letters from individual local authorities and others.

Mr. Mudie

Is the Minister aware of the widespread distress caused in Leeds and throughout the country by the cancellation of the urban programme? Is he further aware that, by that act, he has removed the one hope for the unemployed, the elderly and the very poorest in our inner cities? Does the Minister understand and accept the worrying possible consequences of compelling our inner cities to face next summer with no cash, no initiatives and no hope for our long-term unemployed?

Mr. Redwood

The hon. Gentleman has not looked at the statement. Some £176 million will be spent on the urban programme and capital partnerships for the inner cities next year. The hon. Gentleman may like to remember that, taking city challenge and the urban programme together, we plan to spend £408 million next year, compared with only £319 million this year. Of course I want to see action in the inner cities. We have many projects and plans, and with a Conservative Government we are going to do it.

Mr. Marlow

Would it not be better to spend large sums of our own money in our own deprived urban areas, rather than splashing out vast largesse into the Community cohesion fund?

Mr. Redwood

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are priority needs in our inner cities. That is why we are budgeting as I have described for next year—to produce better hope and life and more jobs in those inner-city areas. Of course Her Majesty's Government intend to drive a hard bargain with our Community partners. We believe in getting value for money wherever public money is spent and that must be true at Community level as well as here at home.

Ms. Lynne

How can the Government claim to be creating employment prospects while at the same time cutting urban programme grants to areas such as Rochdale?

Mr. Redwood

As I have explained, we have a number of programmes for the inner cities, many of which create jobs and job opportunities. Instead of whingeing and complaining, the Opposition should start taking an interest in city challenge, capital partnership and all the other schemes that are producing life and hope in the inner cities and generating many jobs and job opportunities.

Mr. Vaz

That is yet another example of ministerial complacency about a fundamental shift of Government policy which will directly affect the lives of thousands of people who live and work in inner-city areas. Now that the Minister has refused to commit the Government to support round three of city challenge, does not the cancellation of the urban programme put the Government's entire urban regeneration programme into a state of crisis? If the 57 urban programme authorities fail to raise the £500 million that he has predicted they will raise because of the change in the capital receipt regulations, will the Minister come back to the House personally, announce that he will give back to those councils the money that he proposes to take away, and apologise to the people whose lives and jobs and projects will be ruined by this appalling decision?

Mr. Redwood

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

The £500 million that we hoped that local government will raise by way of extra receipts represents additional money for the inner cities. Instead of complaining, the hon. Gentleman should be encouraging his friends on Labour councils in those urban programme areas to ensure that they get the receipts money on time and spend it on good projects for their areas. That is what I want, and I hope that that is what the Opposition want. That is the way to make progress in the inner cities.