ADJUSTMENT OF AREAS (Hansard, 10 February 1993)

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I beg to move amendment No. 133,in page 157, line 10, at end insert 'with effect from 1st July 1994.'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider also the following amendments: No. 134, in page 157, line 14, at end insert
'and shall satisfy himself that the local authority in question has sufficient additional resources to continue where the level of their provision at least at the level preceding the making of such an order.'. No. 135, in page 157, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert— '(a) shall not be exercisable unless a draft of such an order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

§ Mr. Hughes
The amendments form a natural group and relate to the limited subject of the adjustment of areas of urban development corporations. They seek to amend the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the substantive Act by which urban development corporations were established. At present, the Government can set up, by order, an urban development corporation and, by order, that corporation can cease to exist. In the Bill the Government seek to give themselves the power to alter the boundaries of an urban development corporation once it has been set up. The shorthand phrase for that process is de-designation.
The Minister of State knows that the three subjects on which my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments are ones that I discussed with him when he last visited Southwark and Bermondsey, and the London Docklands development corporation area to the east of Tower bridge, 1021 some weeks ago. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support at least the general thrust of the amendments. I hope that I can persuade him to be positive about them, even if he takes them away and changes the wording.
Amendment No. 133 tries to ensure some sort of control over the time scale between the enactment of the Bill—I imagine, later this year—and any partial de-designation of urban development corporation areas. There have been various rumours over the years, and the current rumour is that the Government may well want to de-designate an area when they have finished their regeneration work while leaving the rest of the urban development corporation to continue with certain powers. I understand that argument and do not object to it in principle.
The amendment seeks to provide a natural time for the first such de-designation. I immediately concede that I think that, technically, the slightly better wording would have been with effect from no earlier than 1st July 1994 instead of with effect from 1st July 1994. Nearly every year in May—certainly next year—there are local government elections. Therefore, the logical time to change the status of an area currently within an urban development corporation would be to coincide with a suitable date when the local administration could plan to take it over.
To take the scenario that I know best, were there to be a local election in the London borough of Southwark in 1994—as there is scheduled for the first Thursday of May—it would be sensible for the Government, if they want to de-designate an area at a date after the Bill is enacted, to take the following action. They should de-designate only after leaving a decent interval after enactment so that the authority has plenty of notice. In addition, they should do so at a date that is relevant to the local authority cycle—the election cycle runs from May to May.
That process would allow the Government to tell Southwark, Tower Hamlets or Newham that they want to take a part of the district out of the UDC and hand it back to the authority from 1 July or thereafter. That would mean that, during the election campaign, what had been done and would be done in the area would constitute a natural local election issue.
The future of de-designated development corporation sites is an issue concerning the local electorate. Among other things, they could vote on the alternative programmes for the area when it returns to local authority control. Whether it is 1 July or later is a matter of detail.
I am not arguing that it should be as soon after the local elections as 1 July in London or anywhere else. I am arguing only two things: that there should be a decent interval after the Bill becomes law, and that it should be after a date which allows for local consideration and democratic participation. Ultimately it is right that the areas should go back to local authority control.
Amendment No. 134 again concerns a matter about which there has been consultation with Government and about which the Minister and his colleagues have been addressed not just by me but by various local authorities. It involves a simple, though important issue for the local authorities and communities affected—the funding before and after an area leaves an urban development 1022 corporation. I will not stand by the beauty of the drafting. Indeed, there is a typographical error in the second line: the word "where" should be "with".
Again I will take the example which I know best, Surrey docks within the London Docklands development corporation. Certain funding comes from the taxpayer to the corporation through Government and is used for everything from road building and environmental improvements to the reclamation of land. Some money is used to fund nurseries or community projects. The local authority should not be financially disadvantaged when that area is handed back.
Any funding which an urban development corporation had provided should be transferred to the local authority, otherwise there will be the unsatisfactory position in which an area is returned to council control but the council is given no dowry, as it were, with it. If there is no alteration in the standard spending assessment or in the funding from central Government, a council with additional responsibilities will be disadvantaged, and the community will also be disadvantaged. Projects which had been started and continued on the basis of certain funding would be at risk.
The amendment is about the security of funding programmes during the transition. The Government are alert to the problem. In an area like mine, in the top 10 in the country with unemployment at 20 per cent., there is huge environmental disadvantage. I do not think the Minister was attacking me earlier. Clearly there have been benefits from having an urban regeneration agency in place. Some areas have been improved substantially environmentally and new houses have been provided. We do not want to end up with an infrastructure which we cannot sustain and which becomes grim. We do not want parks which we cannot look after or an environment which deteriorates rapidly and takes us back to where we were. That would not be in the interests of anybody.
As a PS to the debate, may I remind the Minister that when he was in Southwark he visited one of the better-off parts of the urban development area—around Butler's wharf. In such an area the community might rise to providing its own funding, but in other areas that would not be possible because, for example, many people are on income support.
Amendment No. 135 is straightforward. When urban development corporations are set up, they are debated in the House. Even when small areas of land are acquired compulsorily, there is an automatic debate either in the House or in Committee. The amendment would ensure that the House had an automatic opportunity to debate in full session, even though it would probably be after 10 pm, any proposal by Government to use the power in the clause to de-designate partially.
I hope that the draftsmen and women who advise the Government will not find it difficult to agree that that would be a reasonable procedure. I hope that there is no constitutional bar. Again, it is not a London issue because there are many development corporations. The House should have the opportunity to debate any communities which might be the subject of a change of status before a decision is made.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. I hope that all the amendments will receive a positive welcome.

§ Mr. Redwood
The intention of clause 160, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wishes to amend, is to encourage de-designation where the work is complete or more or less complete, and where the local authority can come to an agreement with the urban development corporation for the transfer of that part area back to local authority control. I know that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that general measure which my right hon. and learned Friend and I included after hearing the views of local authorities adjacent to UDC areas. Some are keen to negotiate such transfers.
On the amendments, I am reluctant to put in a time limit. The effect of amendment No. 133 would be that we could not partially de-designate prior to 1 July 1994. It is conceivable that a local authority and a UDC could reach an earlier agreement. If they did, I would be happy for de-designation to go ahead. I would not wish to get in the way of local wishes. If there had not been willing agreement, it is unlikely that we would get to the partial de-designation before 1 July 1994 under the powers approved by both Houses in due course. De-designation would arise only if there was agreement, which deals with the hon. Gentleman's worry about the local democratic effect.
On the question of resources, there has to be negotiation between the local authority and the urban development corporation concerned. Over the last nine months of my discussions with them, I have been asking all UDCs to think at each point, when planning or developing a new proposal, about the long-term liabilities and about whether those can pass to the private sector or whether they would willingly pass to the local authority.
One advantage of partnership and local authority membership of UDC boards is that the issues can be discussed at an early stage and a local authority can indicate whether it would be happy in due course to take over a park or a recreational facility, or whether it thinks that the revenue and maintenance cost would be too large, which would lead, I trust, to a modification of the scheme.
As to the powers, I think that the negative resolution proposal in the Bill gives sufficient parliamentary accountability. This is different from setting up a new body which is taking away powers or duties from a local authority and giving them to a UDC. That procedure clearly needs the techniques which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This is about restoring local democratic accountability for an area which has been handled temporarily by a UDC, so I do not think that it needs an affirmative resolution.
Of course, Parliament is sovereign and can, if it wishes, discuss these matters or express its view should there be contention or difficulty. In most cases—indeed, I hope in every case—it will be done by agreement. I trust that local authorities will make sensible proposals to return the areas to local democratic control once the regeneration work has been wholly or largely completed.
I urge the House to reject the amendments, but will take note of the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am aware of the need to proceed, where possible, by agreement with the local community.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Briefly, and with the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for being generally positive and for some of the encouraging things which he said about the need for agreement on timing and resource allocation. Although I think that I 1024 could work out an amendment that he would find difficult to resist on the arguments that he has put, I will note his comments and seek advice. There will be an opportunity later in the passage of the Bill to seek to move amendments which he may find acceptable.
In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.