OBJECTS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE AGENCY (Hansard, 10 February 1993)

HC Deb 10 February 1993 vol 218 cc990-1020 990

'1.—(1) The Agency established under section 139 below shall have the objects and functions specified in this section and in the rest of Part III.
(2) The main objects of the Agency shall be—

(a) to further the economic development of England or any part of England;
(b) to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness;
(c) to prepare, promote, assist and undertake measures for the economic and social development of England;
(d) to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of England;
(e) to promote a special programme for the creation of employment opportunities in areas affected by the closure of collieries; and
(f) to further the improvement of the environment in England (having regard to existing amenity) and by, inter alia, securing the regeneration of land.

(3) With regard to the functions specified in (2), the objects of the Agency shall relate to the regeneration of land—

(a) which is land of one or more of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (4); and
(b) which the Agency (after consultation with local authorities and acting in accordance with directions, given by the Secretary of State under section 143) determines to be suitable for regeneration under this Part, after having undertaken an environmental assessment of the likely significant effects of the activities.

(4) The descriptions of land referred to in subsections 3(a) are—
1. (a) land which is vacant or unused;
2. (b) land which is situated in an urban area which is under-used or ineffectively used;
3. (c) land which is contaminated, derelict or unsightly; and
4. (d) land which is likely to become derelict or unsightly by reason of actual or apprehended collapse of the surface as the result of carrying out of relevant operations which have ceased to be carried out:
and in this subsection "relevant operations" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982.
(5) The objects of the Agency are to be achieved in particular by the following means, namely—

(a) by developing or encouraging the development of new or existing industry and commerce;
(b) by providing or assisting in the provision of finance to persons carrying on or intending to carry on industrial or commercial undertakings;
(c) by assisting in the establishment or growth of community enterprises or co-operative enterprises;
(d) by promoting or assisting the establishment, growth, modernisation or development of industry or any undertaking in an industry;
(e) by providing or adapting sites or reconstructing premises for any industrial or commercial undertakings or assisting any other person to do any of these things and providing and assisting in the provision of related facilities;
(f) by managing or assisting in the management of sites and premises for industrial undertakings;
(g) by bringing derelict land into use or improving its appearance;
(h) by creating a safe and attractive environment; and
(i) by facilitating the provision of housing and social and recreational facilities.'.—[Mr. Henderson.]

§ Brought up, and read the First time.

§ 4.6 pm

§ Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
I understand that it will he convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 107, in clause 140, page 142, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 29 on page 143.
No. 130, in page 142, line 44 at end insert— '; and

(c) with due regard to the environment in which the land is situated; and

(d) principally for the benefit of the people resident in the local authority area in which the land is situated.'.

§ Mr. Henderson
New clause 14 is about how best the problem of urban dereliction can be tackled in our country. The Government would say that a property-led urban regeneration agency was the most appropriate way of tackling the problem of urban dereliction. The Opposition would argue that such an agency would be inadequate and that the weight of evidence for the weakness of similar past attempts such as the urban development corporations is available for all to see. We would also argue that a full development agency along the lines of the Welsh Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise is necessary if a real attempt is to be made to tackle the problem of urban dereliction in Britain.
I am pleased to say that there was agreement in Committee that there was a problem of urban dereliction which could lead to under-utilisation of potential economic resources, both human and physical, with the inevitable result that unemployment is created. It is a problem which places physical and aesthetic blight on many urban areas. It is a problem which throws up huge social problems such as bad housing, family stress, poor health, poor educational achievement, teenage violence and a drug culture. It is a problem which in many communities in Britain creates a sense of hopelessness. Generations of unemployed people and whole communities feel alienated from the rest of society. It is a problem not only of people but of people and their communities.
There was also agreement in Committee that the problem of urban dereliction would not go away of its own accord and that the state must intervene if a real attempt is to be made to tackle the problems. There was a recognition that market forces would not deal with the problem of urban dereliction and would inevitably tend to create development in prosperous areas. It was recognised that the cost of urban renewal was too expensive to attract a market solution. There are extra costs, such as the cost of clearing sites and providing infrastructure such as roads, railways and new factories. There may be a lack of trained staff to work in a new employment area.
Indeed, there may be difficulty in attracting trained staff into areas afflicted by urban dereliction. A culture of community needs to be established so that staff who come to work in an area which needs to be developed have the 992 facilities which they would expect in other communities such as shopping and recreational facilities. Market forces will not create such facilities. Also, developers will always be attracted to the easy short-term option—the pull of an attractive location which will give them a quick return. State intervention is necessary if developers are to be attracted into areas of severe urban dereliction. That is as far as agreement went when the subject was discussed in Committee and there was no agreement on how the problems could best be tackled.
The Minister said in Committee that a multi-agency approach was necessary, and I do not disagree. He must, however, think of the nature of that approach because there are plenty of examples of multi-agency approaches in the recent past. Urban development councils, task forces, derelict land grant, urban aid, city challenge, training and enterprise councils and a host of other initiatives have been taken. As he visits different parts of the country, the Minister's own eyes must tell him that the problem has not been resolved. He is welcome to come to Tyneside to find out what is happening there. The multi-agency approach has not made any real dent on urban dereliction.
Is not the Government's failure one of economic analysis? One of the Government's advisers, professor Robson of Manchester university, recently spoke about urban problems to the Institute of British Geographers' conference, saying:
It is not enough to rely on benefits trickling down from large developments—such as London Docklands. When too many inhabitants of a city are without money, work, homes, and worst of all without hope, cities as entities must inevitably flounder. Before he sat on the Front Bench the Minister was known to be keen to put his thoughts down in writing from time to time. He prepared a book called, "Popular Capitalism", which obviously endeared him to his master —or rather mistress—of the time, as he was quickly promoted to the Front Bench after its publication. In the book he said: Far from being divisive or doing people down, popular capitalism has got something to offer all of the people. Many pilgrims are now wending their way to Docklands and are mastering the street names of the new city. Perhaps one day Heron Quay, Mudchute, Canary Wharf will be names as well known worldwide as Trafalgar Square, Marble Arch and Charing Cross. So, who are the pilgrims? Credit Suisse, Ogilvy and Mather—an advertising company—the Daily Telegraph, and the remains of the developers Olympia and York. That constitutes only 15 per cent. of Canary Wharf, however, because the rest of it is lying empty—so they are lonely pilgrims.
The Minister's officials were not prepared to be pilgrims. They were offered the chance to jump on Howard's Mayflower at Westminster and troop down the Thames to the Isle of Dogs, but as soon as the opportunity was made available it became known as the great mutiny on the Thames because his employees were not prepared to go. Instead of being known as Heron Quay or Canary Wharf, it will be known as the lost city of Wapping, and in many senses it deserves to be, because the project was ill conceived.
Why will the Government not listen to the evidence that a development-type agency is necessary? That view has been expressed to the Government by a wide range of sources. The agency should co-ordinate infrastructure development, the activities of the important Departments of Transport, Environment, and Trade and Industry. It 993 should link up any training schemes that might be made available and act to encourage inward investment. It should co-ordinate grants and aid and, importantly, promote the area.
4.15 pm
Not only the Labour party is saying that, but the Government's own consultants. I have a document which has already been presented to the Minister by Linklaters and Paines. It argues forcibly that a property-based agency on its own will be completely inadequate. It strongly argues for a development agency to co-ordinate the various factors that I mentioned.
The builders involved in many of the development schemes have also used the same argument. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House by reeling off endless quotes, but it is useful to quote Costain, which states: The Consultation Paper on which the Bill is based
gives no indication of how the primary aim of the Agency, 'to enable vacant and derelict land in urban areas to be brought into use', will be integrated with the people related activities which are so necessary. Scotland, with its network of Enterprise Companies, and Wales, with its Development Agency, have a more holistic answer to the challenge and we recommend that this opportunity be used to provide a similar response to England's regeneration needs. Nigel Smith, another of the Government's advisers, wrote in a recent article in the Local Government Chronicle: The WDA has been able to exploit the synergy between its property and inward investment functions—offering a one stop shop—to great effect. Regionally based outfits in England cannot hold a candle to the Welsh. If the Minister is not convinced by the evidence of the consultants and the developers, perhaps he will listen to the views of Lord Walker, who will be appointed chairman of the agency should Parliament approve it.
Autobiographies have become fashionable for ex-Ministers and Lord Walker in his argues: We calculated that by creating new businesses, helping existing companies grow and attracting inward investment from Britain and overseas, we could bring down unemployment to the lowest figure in England"— in relation to Wales. I quickly realised that my best instrument for achieving all this was the Welsh Development Agency. It was flexible, could help with the property side, offer grants in line with the EEC rules. I gave it more money to expand the job.

§ The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood)
How is it that the hon. Gentleman argues for wider powers, opportunities and responsibilities for an unelected organisation—the URA—while the leader of the Labour party said that much more must be done by elected politicians in government and local authorities? There seems to be an inconsistency between his amendment and what the leader of his party was saying a few days ago.

§ Mr. Henderson
There is absolutely no distinction between what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the leader of the Labour party, was saying and what I have said. My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party would support me in saying that the agency charged with regenerating urban Britain must be given the proper powers to do the job. My right hon. and learned Friend 994 made the point, as I would, that the agency should be democratically accountable to Parliament, certainly on an annual basis when setting out budgets and reports.
The agency should also be accountable to the regions of the country where it operates. The democratic structure on which the agency could be regionally based should be examined. There should be local monitoring committees so that where the agency is working in local streets or communities, the residents can have a direct say in what it is doing. There is absolutely no distinction between the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and myself or my other hon. Friends.
Even were the property-led agency to have some impact upon our cities, does the Minister believe that it could have any impact on rebuilding communities in our coalfields? There is clearly a need not only to rebuild the whole economies of those areas but to bring in the infrastructure, to develop the training and to do all the other things which are necessary to give a community hope for jobs, vitality and a chance of being successful. I hope the Minister is not suggesting that there should be a Grimethorpe wharf. I cannot imagine that that would do much to help rebuild that community.
In relation to the regeneration of land, is it not also essential to do that in partnership with local authorities? The Government have not given sufficient emphasis to that. Partnership is necessary so that planning is co-ordinated and things like housing need are taken into account. Where there is a chance of revitalising many inner-city areas, much of the investment should be in housing. If inner city areas are to have vitality and hope for the future, people must live there. If there are no houses which people can afford, they will not be able to live in the inner cities.
The third argument in favour of a partnership with local authorities is that expenditure programmes must be closely co-ordinated; otherwise, any good work undertaken by any agency could be undermined because of the authority's lack of resources.
If I had had more time, I would have liked to give more evidence to the House of other authorities who have argued the same case. It is important that the House understands that the argument about building a partnership with local authorities is not party political. It is put forward by practitioners who have experience of development schemes. Organisations like the Building Employers Confederation have argued the case firmly. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is far from being Labour-controlled, has also put in a submission to the Minister about the need for development schemes to involve local authorities.
If the Minister cares to read the press releases of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), he will see in the press release of 16 November 1992 that Mr. Howard stressed in his keynote speech that there were no quick fixes and that the success of urban regeneration required partnership, the key to his major capital partnership initiative. He said: 'There is no doubt in my mind there are opportunities in the inner cities. Local authorities have a key role to ensure that these opportunities are seized.' I hope that the Government are prepared to learn from the lesson that they must have witnessed with their own eyes, namely, the disasters in areas like docklands; they should also learn from the experience of the 1980s when there were too many confusing schemes and too many unco-ordinated and disjointed schemes, and when all the 995 schemes had too few resources, with the result that none of the schemes made any great impact on regenerating urban areas.
The Minister should learn from the experience of his colleagues in Scotland and Wales who are sitting not far from him. Development agencies in Scotland and Wales, working closely and in partnership with local authorities, have achieved more than the panoply of schemes which have been available intermittently in parts of England. The Minister should listen to the experience Of consultants, planners, architects, surveyors, builders and developers.
They are all saying the same thing: that a properly-led agency will not work and that an agency with much firmer powers must be able to take on the real task of regenerating not only the economy but the social fabric of many of the inner cities. That rebuilding has to be done in partnership with local authorities. That is also the experience of local authorities and of the local people who have been involved.
New clause 14 gives the House a new opportunity for urban regeneration. It provides an opportunity to create legislation which can have a real impact on a terrible problem which afflicts many parts of the country. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as proposed in new clause 14.

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
I strongly support the new clause. If we want to promote economic development through the 1990s and into the 21st century, we need to take a long-term view and to ensure that it is carefully co-ordinated and planned. We need a well-developed strategic approach. Most importantly, we must consider the human resources in a particular area. The vast majority of the 306 responses to the Government's consultative exercise on the proposed urban regeneration agency raised the points to which I have just referred. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, those responses were not party-based; they came from across the whole spectrum of political parties.
The Minister made it clear in Committee that he envisaged the urban regeneration agency as having a narrow brief—a step towards bringing derelict land back into use. He then said:
the task of encouraging wholesale regeneration…is very large. That is why we need a series of other policies in other Departments, other bodies, and local authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 January 1993; c. 806.] The special measures expenditure, the urban block element of DOE expenditure, is small—a ratio of 1:12. It is a small carrot intended to encourage a donkey along the road of increased economic activity. Our point is that, if the donkey is walking down the wrong road—if unemployment and poverty are increasing, benefits are being cut and housing is becoming more and more derelict —that small carrot will not he sufficient to encourage the donkey down the right road of economic development in any of our cities. I hope that the Minister will make representations to his Cabinet colleagues to change the direction of wholesale economic policy to make economic development in inner-city areas effective. If he does not do that, the policy will not be effective.
The second point of concern about special measures —the £200 million carrot—is that there is every likelihood that the money will not go where it is most needed. A parliamentary answer to me on 27 January referring to the 996 distribution of urban block expenditure this year clearly showed that £318 million of the £1 billion block had gone to London and the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North commented on docklands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) produced figures only two days ago showing that, overall, there has been a dramatic shift in public resources to east Anglia, London and the south-east. At the same time as the Government are talking about the problems of reclaiming derelict land and property in those areas which have suffered industrial decline, in the northern region there has been a 4 per cent. cut in public resources.
Through new clauses 14 and 108, we are attempting to ensure that expenditure is effective, but it will not be effective unless there is a well-developed, democratically controlled regional structure to define the strategic approach and to attract funds. As I said both on Second Reading and in Committee—on neither occasion did the Government satisfactorily pick up the points—there is nothing in the Bill relating to the increasingly important role of the European Community in special measures funds for economic development. Research over the past five years has shown that the European countries and regions which were most effective in their use of European economic development and social fund moneys were those with a strong regional democratic structure. That important element is totally missing from the Bill.
4.30 pm
This distribution of funds is also important. It is not possible for a regeneration agency which is blinded by land and property and politics alone, and which does not identify the plight of the people living there, to create a distribution system based on need. My hon. Friend mentioned what happened in the docklands in the 1980s. The special inner-city measures introduced by a Conservative Government during the mid-1980s were a sick joke. They were spoken of as relating to poverty and to inner cities, but there followed the most lucrative profits for property developers as property prices sharply increased. The Government have learnt nothing and they are making the same mistake again. They are offering a new initiative based simply on land and property, which will have no effect on the reality of life for people living in the cities.
Simultaneous with the launching of the agency is the rundown and destruction of the urban programme, which has clear criteria for meeting training demands and the needs of black communities. We have seen the rundown also of the safer cities initiative, which was crucial in upgrading inner-city policing and reducing crime, and of Home Office-funded schemes which made a major impact on training and education among black and other ethnic minority communities. All that is happening at a time when official statistics released yesterday show that unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is 18 per cent. while among black and other ethnic minority communities it is as high as 38 per cent. Yet still the Government are shifting from a people-based approach to one narrowly based on land and property. That missed opportunity is unforgivable.
The agency's style and constitution lacks everything that we want. It is yet another example of government by quango. The board's membership will be tightly drawn 997 and nominated by the Minister—its chairman has already been nominated. It will follow the pattern set by many other quangos with memberships nominated by Ministers —training and enterprise councils, development corporations, health trusts, and so on. I recommend Keith Shaw's study of the north-eastern area, "Regional studies No. 2 —1990: In search of the non-elected state". A serious democratic deficit is now involved in the control of the major elements of public funding in a variety of areas. Accountability is lacking, because power and money have been shifted away from locally accountable authorities. I find that extremely worrying.
We discussed the regeneration agency's corporate plan in Committee. We also had an interesting discussion this morning in the Select Committee on the Environment about the merits of publishing the draft corporate plan for the Housing Corporation, for which the National Federation of Housing Associations has pressed very strongly. We want the plan to be open to public scrutiny, consultation and discussion. The Minister said a good deal in Committee about the need for consultation on the agency's plans and proposals, but nothing in the Bill even suggests that the agency has a duty to prepare and present a corporate plan; such a plan is not even mentioned.
The Minister said in one of his replies that the agency would be required to produce for the Secretary of State a corporate plan and detailed budget management documents, which he will study and approve".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 January 1993; c. 843.] That, however, is no answer to the question of open government. There is no point in simply publishing an annual report which is retrospective and then saying, "You can have all the consultation you want," because the consultation would be about something that had already happened. I ask the Minister to agree—in the spirit of open government—to require the agency to publish its draft corporate plan, so that discussion and consultation can take place before the Minister makes his funding decisions.
I hope that I shall catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair later today so that I can refer to the important question of the removal of planning control from local authorities in designated areas. That is relevant to new clause 21.
With the right economic policy, the agency has the potential to take on board economic development under democratic control, along the lines suggested in new clause 14. It could encompass all aspects of economic development, concentrate its drive and motivation on the human resources which exist in our cities and urban areas and help to promote the economy of those areas.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I support the new clause, but I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 130, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones).
I must declare an obvious interest: I represent a development corporation constituency, and have done throughout my time in the House. As a result, I have some experience of what it is like to represent, and to live and work in, an area whose regeneration authority is appointed by Ministers. I have had the opportunity to reflect on the nature of an authority whose members have come and gone while elected members have remained—and, above all, whose specific objectives have never been defined.
998 Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 defines the object of an urban development corporation as to secure the regeneration of its area. It does not say how, when or, more important, for whom. It does not say in whose interests an area is to be regenerated. It is regeneration for regeneration's sake. Often the attitude of those who live and work, and those who have lived and worked, in the Surrey docks area along the south side of the Thames, in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, and by London bridge—and, equally, those in the Isle of Dogs, Wapping, Tower Hamlets and Newham—has been, "Yes, there is regeneration, but it is not regeneration for us."
In many cases, indeed, it has appeared to be regeneration against "us". Schemes were announced, put to the planning committee of the development corporation —a body not elected by anyone—and approved. Some of these schemes then took effect, even though they were contrary to the views expressed by local communities, their representatives and often the local councils.
Like the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I make the point that we should not be under the illusion that any type of appointed agency is a substitute for a democratically accountable body. This is no replacement for democratic regional government in England, no replacement for fairly elected local authorities making decisions for their areas, and no replacement for a tier of local government in London, as in the rest of England, at parish or community level, which could look at very small development and planning matters. I know that the Minister is aware of and at least partially sympathetic to the last of these points. I hope that, when he has completed the work that he is doing, he will agree that we in London, like people in the rest of the country, are entitled to parish or community councils.
We shall certainly not secure democratic accountability through the proposed agency. That being so, I make a plea for some things which, even if we do not like the structure and the format, can at least determine the nature of the agency. First, we need a partnership between the agency and its works, on the one hand, and those who are democratically elected and their plans, on the other. That point has been made already, so I shall not elaborate on it. Secondly, we need proper consultation—a point made well by the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and for Sheffield, Hillsborough, who said that it was not good enough to have a few quango employees producing a glossy brochure and saying, "This is the corporate plan —take it," but no consultation with people on the ground, who might just have some good ideas.
One of the frustrations of Members for Docklands constituencies—this has been put to the Minister's predecessors—is that they have often heard of plans and initiatives only after the press has been told about them. That is no way to proceed. This is not self-interest and arrogance; it is simply that, in a democracy, elected representatives, whether at local government level or at parliamentary level, are entitled to timely information about what is going on.
Within the confines of the structure that the Government want the agency to have, its membership should take some account of the interests and concerns of those who are democratically elected. Indeed, it would be no bad thing if the majority of the agency's membership 999 could be arrived at after consultation with representatives of the local authorities—in particular, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, potentially, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of London Authorities, and the London boroughs. It would certainly be a good idea if those who do this job were to reflect democratic trends, as well as bringing skills and expertise to it.

§ Mr. Redwood
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 34 local authority members on the boards in urban development corporations around the country? There are many good examples of how people work in partnership. I welcome the fact that, in several towns, cities and other areas, there is now excellent collaboration. Indeed. in the case of Hartland and Plymouth, the local authorities want urban development corporations; they have been pressing us to set them up and get on with the job.

4.45 pm

§ Mr. Hughes
To be completely honest, I have to say that I did not know that the number was 34. I accept that development co-operatives have some local authority members. Indeed, such members have always been sought. In the case of the Docklands corporation, a local authority member has been sought from each of the three borough councils. The problem is, they never constitute a majority on the development corporation: democratic accountability is fine, but the inability ever to be a majority gives rise to the danger of tokenism.
Some local authorities see the benefit of an agency and of money coming in. The Minister must understand the point that I am making, as in the not too distant past he worked in and sought to represent urban areas, although the electors of Peckham were not terribly supportive of that proposition when he presented himself to them. At any rate, he will remember how important it is to secure partnership and agreement wherever possible.
Secondly, much regeneration has yet to take place. Last year a friend of mine—a Zimbabwean nun who works for Oxfam—visited Britain. Having been to many parts of urban England, she commented on the extent to which land is under-used. She regarded that as a scandal. In Zimbabwe, good land is such a valuable commodity—yet here she saw much good land in this country which was not being used. My friend made the point very tellingly. It can be beneficial to be made aware of the perspective of someone from outside our own culture.
I do not dissent from the proposition that there has been some very laggardly development, but there is no point in development if we get it wrong and if it does not meet people's needs. In this regard, I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to our amendment and that, if he is unable to accept it, he will undertake to consider it with a view to negotiating something which could be the subject of an amendment in another place.
I wish to make a serious point in relation to the two halves of a very simple amendment: first, any development should take place with due regard to the environment; secondly, it should be principally for the benefit of residents of the area. Like my constituents and many others in urban Britain, I am aware that some of the benefits of urban life have corresponding disbenefits. One thinks for example, of noise, pollution, high crime rates and a generally lower quality of life. In urban Britain, the chances of having one's vehicle or house broken into are 1000 considerably higher, and people have to tolerate traffic noise through the night as well as through the day. It is therefore very important that the environment in which regeneration takes place should leave people with a better quality of life.
I will give two examples relating to the experience of those of us from south London. We believe that we are about to have something which, in the short term, will be much more useful than a regeneration agency. This is a matter about which the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) shares my concern. I refer to the announcement about the Jubilee line extension, which has been mentioned so often in the House that someone from another planet might think that we were struck in a timewarp—or the groove of a record. We have been promised that development, and we are waiting for it to come out of the tunnel—but we have been waiting so long that we have almost forgotten which way to look.
The extension will do much good for docklands south and north of the river, but we must have regeneration which takes account of the best means of removing the spoil of four years' work from where people live. There is no point in suffering four years of hell if it can be avoided. That is not a matter with which I want the Minister to deal specifically, but I mention it as an example. Regeneration must take account of the already noisy, cramped and difficult urban environment, and therefore must be planned so as to minimise disturbance and maximise benefit. For example, spoil should be transported by river rather than by road, and lorry journeys should be made as short as possible. Such practical measures can be taken to deal with problems which affect people immensely.
The second example is topical. It directly affects riverside Members in central London, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and I are equally concerned about it. We have just learnt that some promoters wish to introduce a floating helipad which would move among 22 sites between Chelsea bridge and the pool of London. In the past 10 years, there have been six battles—all of them successful—to stop helicopters from landing and taking off from riverside sites at Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. On Monday, there was a trial flight from one roof of Sea Containers house by Blackfriars bridge before an inquiry in April.
Regeneration cannot be environmentally sound if its consequence is to permit helicopter flights, which people regard as a blessed nuisance, without their being subject to any planning authority. The Minister appears almost amazed that that is not subject to the planning requirements. We want not loopholes but proper processes of consultation and decision.

§ Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he is my hon. Friend on this issue—for giving way. This proposal will circumvent every planning law. It seems nonsense that we are discussing a Bill on housing and urban development while at the same time this proposal is being allowed to proceed. I am sorry that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not been selected, because we must find a means of subjecting the proposal to the normal planning procedures so that people who live and work along the river are consulted before their lives are runied.

1001

§ Mr. Hughes
The hon. Lady makes a good point. There is a convergence of views in the community. People who live in inner cities, regardless of their political views, often have the same views. We are saying that we do not want short cuts which circumvent the proper procedures. The majority view is not held uniquely by people living in council tower blocks; it is also shared by people who have bought expensive riverside flats on a long lease. Whatever our reservations and qualifications about the agency, our plea is that short cuts which have an environmental disbenefit must not be allowed.
My next point relates to paragraph (d) of amendment No. 130, which uses the words principally for the benefit of local residents. I do not mean that development must be only for the benefit of people who live in the area, but if a person's home is chosen for regeneration by an agency which nobody has elected, it is reasonable to expect the agency to act first in the interests of the people trapped by the decision and most affected by it.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North argued that one of the agency's purposes must be to maximise employment, and that point is made in one of the objects of the agency. My constituency has one of the 10 highest unemployment rates in Britain, so one of my key tasks is to maximise work opportunities for people who do not have work but who want to use their skills. Objectives must be specific and of benefit to residents.
Suitable housing must be developed. It is no good building luxury riverside flats which are out of the range of 95 per cent. of the population when there is not enough accommodation to house people such as the three who came to my door this morning before I left home saying that they wanted housing. Enough schools must be built to cater for the extra people who move into an area when it is regenerated. Such co-ordinated arrangements are necessary for the community.
The transport system must be able to meet the needs of a regenerated area. It is no good the M25 and the docklands light railway being found to be inadequate because they were planned wrongly. I am not saying that we should widen the M25-I believe that goods should be transported by other means—but a railway should be able to cater for the number of people who use it. Let us have some sympathy and priority for people who live in areas which are chosen for regeneration. Such areas are not just lines on the map; they contain real people whose families have often lived there for generations, and they have a right to have their interests put first.
I agree also that one of the prime functions of the agency should be to help in the coalfield communities of Britain. As the docks of south London have shown, when an industry is removed it removes a substantial employer and generator of primary or secondary work. Whatever the outcome of the review, and however many pits are saved, we have a duty to ensure that the coalfield communities are supported and encouraged and that those areas become as prosperous to live in as anywhere else.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the new clause and to my amendment.

§ Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South-East)
The proposed urban development agency must be judged against a number of things, especially rising unemployment. Unemployment in Coventry is about 11.5 per cent., 1002 and a fair proportion of those unemployed are young people. They obviously take much interest in anything that the Government suggest to tackle the problem.
My problem with the Bill is that, on the one hand, the Government set up an urban development agency but on the other the Government go into the abstract and become a little vague about what I call the subsidiary resources and the agencies that should go with it. As some of my hon. Friends said earlier, urban aid projects such as the safer cities programme, section 11 and education projects are under threat from the Government. People in urban areas, especially black people, rely on those agencies for training, advice and business experience to enable them to set up businesses. The Government say that their objective is to tackle regeneration and create jobs, yet they are removing that objective in the way that I outlined.
The other yardstick is whether the agency will help to revive Britain's manufacturing base. People in great manufacturing cities such as Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton will take an interest in seeing whether these agencies can re-establish our industrial base. For far too long, Britain's industrial base has been eroded, especially during the 1980s, or the boom years as we now like to call them, when the service industries flourished and everyone thought that we were on the road to utopia, only to discover six or seven years later that we were not.
We must remember that many urban development agencies could be successful, providing they have the co-operation of local authorities and local industrialists. There have been several debates about Europe recently. Europe has forms of—dare I say it—regional government. Agencies can work hand in hand with regional government to allow for what I would call strategic planning on a major scale in any given region. In that respect, there is a vacuum in this country, and that is where the problems will lie in trying to ensure that the regeneration agency is successful.
5 pm
We should remember that we do not have a structure in this country to meet the European criteria in terms of attracting grants to some of our more depressed areas. Ministers often go to Europe to haggle with and to persuade our partners to provide money for our deprived regions. That problem must be dealt with if urban development agencies are to have a measure of success. The Minister might find that he will have to establish more locally based agencies because there must be a mechanism or vehicle to make people in localities within regions feel that they are part of the decision-making process of that region.
There must certainly be something more locally based in cities such as Birmingham and Coventry. If not, the agencies will not necessarily receive the co-operation of local residents who might experience difficulties with, for example, planning permissions, an issue that we shall discuss later.
The Minister said that there had been a great deal of co-operation with local authorities. I have no reason to doubt that, but based on my experience in the west midlands, stronger representation will be needed on any boards. Without that, the boards will become quangos which could ride roughshod over people, local authorities, industry and industrialists. The result might be that the 1003 objectives of land regeneration and job creation are not achieved. In any event, the Minister must take on board those issues.
One of the big problems is that any regeneration must take place against the Chancellor's autumn statement and the Chief Secretary's statement yesterday. Many aspects of spending are to be reviewed, which will cause considerable problems because the agency will be trying to fulfil its function with diminishing resources, and that is what it is all about. The Government are trying to operate a policy which has no more than a 50:50 chance of success.
All in all, there seems to be little hope for inner-city areas, especially in terms of urban aid, safer cities and financial help. We have already told the Minister that there are serious disturbances in those areas. People have tried to analyse them, and I have no more answers than anyone else, but they know that many young people, of black and European origin, have no hope because they do not have a job. Many have never had jobs but will be looking to the Government to provide jobs and training. Some people in the major cities will be considering the proposals in that light.
We hoped, and we still hope, that the Minister will have second thoughts about urban aid and section 11 areas for which he has responsibility. We hope that he will talk to his colleagues about safer cities projects because if they are not maintained alongside urban development projects, I and a number of colleagues will be apprehensive about what is likely to happen this summer. I say that not as a threat but out of extreme concern. I have spoken to people in the inner cities who have experienced burglaries and violence.
We hope that the Minister will consider the new clause and, where possible, give a little. I repeat that Coventry has a number of sites and projects that we would like him to consider if and when the legislation is approved.

§ Ms. Ann Coffey (Stockport)
I support new clause 14. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am worried about the narrowness of the Bill in attempting to achieve urban regeneration. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), I am specially concerned about urban aid funding being run down in the next few years. We need to consider a number of strategies to achieve urban regeneration: industrial investment, improvement of houses, access to employment, and social and recreational facilities.
Those strategies are necessary to the regeneration of communities. We often talk about urban regeneration but we mean the regeneration of communities. "Community" is a very over-used word. I sometimes think that people believe that communities are suddenly born. They are not; people have to work to create a community and to continue to work to hold it together. Urban aid funding has been very important, especially in many inner cities, in enabling that to happen and in allowing communities to work together in the face of obstacles.
Urban aid funding has been used in a variety of ways. It has mostly been used in areas of rising unemployment, poor social housing and rising crime. It has been used for the benefit of the community. A number of projects are currently being funded by urban aid. I could give an enormous list, but I shall mention just a few. The list includes play schemes for the under-fives for whom nursery education is not available; support and advice to carers, people living at home looking after relatives; 1004 community action schemes which help communities to feel that they are achieving something and help to get rid of the feeling of powerlessness, and youth centres and centres for the elderly. Such projects have often given back to communities that feel decimated and demoralised the hope and possibility of achieving something.
That feeling should not be under-estimated, because the most serious problem is the demoralisation of inner-city communities. That demoralisation leads to a fragmentation and the result is, unfortunately, ever-rising crime.
The Minister is making a fundamental mistake in using urban aid money to finance the urban regeneration agency. The urban aid money is for a different purpose.
I do not know whether the Minister expects local authorities to be able to pick up the tab, which is what happened in the past when urban aid money ran out. But in the past they could raise the finance, and now they cannot. Throughout the country, especially in the inner cities, local authorities face the capping of their budgets. The name of the game these days is cutting services. The only choice that local authorities have is which services to cut—and they have to make such choices in the face of an enormous amount of legislation based on the assumption that the community is there to care and to provide the network. Both the Children Act 1989 and the National Health and Community Care Act 1990, especially the latter, make assumptions about the caring community networks being there to look after the elderly.
As the Minister knows, raising finance has been made even more difficult for local authorities in the aftermath of the poll tax disaster. I estimate that in Stockport, my local authority area, £10 million which could have been spent on services has been lost through debt charges on borrowing, uncollected poll tax, administration and all the associated costs. The problem continues, because the deficit is still there. Local authorities will not be able to pick up the tab. They will not be able to provide statutory services to fill the gap. Inevitably, the projects will disappear, and that will be a further blow to the communities. I urge the Minister to think again.
Most such projects are funded through the voluntary sector, on which the community, the statutory sector and, indeed, the Government are relying more and more heavily to provide services such as sitting schemes, transport, luncheon clubs, respite care for handicapped children, and so on. However, "voluntary" does not mean free and for nothing. Voluntary agencies need support for administrative costs and for training workers. The voluntary sector will be especially hard hit by the withdrawal of urban aid funding.
In Committee the Minister answered our questions about the narrowness of the Bill by saying that housing problems and the problems involved in generating social networks would be dealt with elsewhere, through other policies. However, since the mandatory grants scheme was introduced in Stockport in 1990, fewer houses have been improved with grants and through envelope schemes. To rely on the grants system to deal with problems such as improving housing as part of urban regeneration involves a gross assumption. That simply is not happening.
How can one talk about urban regeneration without considering employment, especially among young people? Unemployment increases poverty in the community, and the cycle of economic decline continues. As more people become unemployed, there is less buying power and less 1005 demand, so industries go out of business as a result. We need to attract industry, and to do so we must have a skilled work force.
5.15 pm
The training and enterprise councils have the major responsibility for skilling the community, especially young people, but I am worried about whether that is happening to a high enough level. We still seem to be thinking in terms of quantity rather than quality. I was most concerned that, in the High Peak TEC area, fewer young people were given engineering placements this year than last year. That seems to be a sign that the attempt to give young people badly needed manufacturing and engineering skills is gradually being given up. I do not know how we can attract new industrial investment if we have no skilled labour force.
All those matters must be tackled—employment, industrial strategy, and improving the social network and the housing infrastructure. If that does not happen there will be no genuine urban regeneration. It cannot be done simply by local authorities. The Minister is right to say that more strategic planning is needed. The pity of it is that the north-west, especially Greater Manchester, already had a strategic planning level—the Greater Manchester council, which the Government abolished. I am glad that they have gradually come round to the idea that a strategic planning level is needed to make things happen.
Of course, planning on that scale has to go beyond local authorities, but I still argue that it can be achieved through the democratic system. At present, through the planning laws, the Secretary of State has the last word. Any developer refused permission by the local council can appeal to the Secretary of State, and the council's decision can be overturned. That opportunity is open to the developer, but not to the objector. The objector cannot go to the Secretary of State. The planning laws have been considerably centralised since 1987, which has limited local authorities' ability to make planning decisions. There is a great deal of central control over planning issues.
There are several reasons why the system should be democratic. It is worrying that the Government are exerting tighter and tigher control over the allocation of resources, yet are handing over the responsibility for spending and managing those resources to unelected representatives appointed by a system which is by no means clear to everybody. What does the term "community representative" mean? Who is to judge who is a community representative?
The only way to judge who represents the community is through an electoral system, whereby one can see by the votes cast who is a community representative and who is not. The system of government by unelected representatives is pervading our whole society, which is a matter for enormous concern. When things go wrong, to whom do people complain? How do they know how decisions are taken, and how do they influence them and change things? Without a system of elected representation, none of that is possible.
Instead of the idea of elected representatives we now seem to have the notion of consultation. Over the past few days I have heard the phrase "right to consultation" again and again. What does it mean? Consultation means nothing unless the person being consulted is really able to 1006 influence what happens. Unless elected representatives have the power to influence, and to make things happen, consultation and the phrase "right to consultation", mean nothing.
When the Minister sums up I hope that he will consider carefully the narrowness of the Bill and how, given that narrowness, it can achieve urban regeneration. Secondly, I hope that he will deal with the issue of democratic representation, and all the agencies that will spend money and make decisions which have enormous consequences for neighbourhoods.

§ Mr. George Mudie (Leeds, East)
I was in two minds whether to speak because of the timetable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has told me that he has already written five minutes of praise about my speech, so I had better make it.
I am also a bit embarrassed. As the Minister knows, I was not a great admirer of the Bill on Second Reading or in Committee. However, I rise under instruction—[Interruption.] It is not what hon. Members think. I am under instruction from my colleagues and friends in the fine city of Leeds. One of the first things I found out during my first week here, which I have not been able to practise, is that if one does not ask, one does not get owt. I am under instructions that before this terrible measure has completed its passage through the House, I must launch the interest of the city of Leeds in housing Lord Walker and his many staff. That plea is an additional reason why I support the fine new clause. Lord Walker will need more staff if the new clause is included in the Bill, so more office space will be needed.

§ Mr. Redwood
It would help the case of Leeds no end if the hon. Gentleman said that he did not support the new clause. I cannot guarantee that I could deliver the Leeds office in that case, but it might sway Lord Walker.

§ Mr. Mudie
As Oscar Wilde said, the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to give in to it. However, I shall not. Sorry, Leeds, I shall not be bribed—at least not in front of the cameras.
It will be sufficient for me to explain what a fine city Leeds is. The civil servants will not have to fear wending their way tubeless to docklands or even to Marsham street. Like their 2,000 colleagues in the Department of Social Security, they would be in the centre of Leeds. There is still space on the same site and within 10 minutes, they would be in open countryside.

§ Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)
It is called Sheffield.

§ Mr. Mudie
I was about to deal with that city south of the great city of Leeds. If the civil servants had the time, they could always nip down to peer at the quaint city of Sheffield. I hope that the Minister will give my suggestion due consideration.

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson
I cannot let pass the implication that people will travel down the motorway to Sheffield just to have a look at the shopping facilities, especially as they might end up in Meadowhall rather than in central Sheffield. The importance of the excellent city of Sheffield is its tradition in training under the Manpower Services Commission, as it used to be called. We have said throughout the passage of the Bill that the various 1007 elements should work closely together. For that reason, the city of Sheffield would be an ideal location for the urban regeneration agency.
If the city of Leeds thinks that it can get up in the debate and make a single-handed bid for the headquarters of the new agency without every other city that is represented here having a go, it must think again. We are really discussing the issue of the agency and not making bids for the crumbs of its headquarters.

§ Mr. Soley
What about Hammersmith?

§ Mr. Mudie
What about Hammersmith? I think that I had better put the matter away, which will be a relief to everyone. I rest my case. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the record shows that Leeds, as usual, was first with a site and with a good description of the facilities available.
When I was a youngster, I had a hero called Nye Bevan. I remember reading one of his books in which he gave a warning about this place to which I did not then pay sufficient heed. He warned about how the procedures and methods of operating here tend to civilise and to blunt anger. My experience has taught me that that happens most of the time. That is a disadvantage in a debate such as this. Someone outside watching the debate and hearing the technical phrases about grants, about the urban regeneration agency and about the urban programme might forget what we are talking about. We are talking about the inner cities programme of the Department of the Environment.
It is worth while to take a minute to go over the basis on which the inner cities programme is framed. The Government have a programme relationship with 57 of our cities which shows that there is no dispute about the problems in those cities. Life can be very hard in the inner cities, and on occasions it defeats people. I live in an inner city and I do not suggest for a second that all inner cities have problems. However, I was a councillor in Leeds for 20 years and it has been my experience that there are many city communities in which people have nasty, brutish lives and get a very bad deal out of society.
The unemployment level for inner cities is often double or treble the level elsewhere. One of the Sunday papers published a chart of how wealthy each city was. Leeds was 98th, which was not bad. When revenue support grant is distributed, Leeds is treated as an affluent city because it contains within its boundaries places such as Wetherby, Otly, Roundhay and Moortown. Such areas help to balance and to mask the realities of life in other parts of the city. Unemployment levels in the inner cities are twice or three times those in the rest of the city. Figures released in the past two weeks show that there is three times the normal level of unemployment among Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in my inner city.
There is invariably a major lack of investment in housing in inner cities which means that there are serious housing problems such as bad roofs, no heating, old sink units, old baths and badly fitting, draughty window frames. All that contributes to an unhealthy housing stock which has effects on the occupants and, above all, on the children. There are effects on education, on health and on future employment. When a young child gets bronchitis because of the lack of heating at home, he requires time off school. That time off school will endanger his academic record and thus his future employment record.
1008 Communities normally have their own primary schools and perhaps their own middle and high schools. The education that the children receive there is not the equal of the education given to children in other parts of the city. I do not for a minute criticise the teachers who work very hard. If 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the children —[Interruption.] I am discussing the inner cities programme. I point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the Clerk advises you to challenge me, that the people who live in the inner cities are a vital part of them.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. I make the decisions and I consulted the Clerk. The hon. Gentleman was straying rather wide of the functions of the agency, and I should be grateful if he would return to them.

5.30 pm

§ Mr. Mudie
I shall return to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which extends the aims and objectives of the agency to cover social, economic and environmental matters. I have been dealing with some of the social problems that the inner cities programme is designed to help. The question that we must ask is whether the Bill adds to or improves on existing inner-city initiatives. Does it meet any of our objectives or deal with any of the problems affecting inner cities?
As I said at the outset, although we can discuss such matters in the abstract, it is as well to spend a couple of minutes considering what people's lives are like in our inner cities. Education provision is poor and health is bad. Health records show that someone living in an inner city is likely to die earlier and suffer from more illnesses. The children of an inner-city dweller are likely to be unhealthier than other children. Crime and vandalism are part of inner-city life. In some places people cannot get insurance; their car—if they have a car—is daily and nightly at risk. Elderly people are, and feel themselves to be, at risk.
That is the reality. If the Minister does not agree, I challenge him to say so. I have done no more than to describe my experience of life in my city and in other inner cities. Those are the problems with which the inner-city programme is supposed to deal.
I repeat the question that I asked on Second Reading and in Committee: will the Bill bring relief to the people of the inner cities who are suffering from the problems that I described? I do not think that it will. I think that the proposal was put on the table when land was short and the idea of adding derelict land to the programme seemed very attractive. In 1993, that is no longer the case. The tower cranes have disappeared from the inner cities. A developer coming to a city will find prime development sites available for building. The measure may have been relevant in 1987–88, at the height of the property boom, but it is irrelevant now.
I have a second criticism of the measure. An examination of the range of inner-city initiatives reveals a trend towards property, buildings and land which is well worth considering. City grant, derelict land grant, the development corporations, and city action teams—only shortage of time prevents me from reading in full the official descriptions from the 1992 Department of the Environment annual report of what the organisations do —as well as city challenge consist predominantly of land and property initiatives.
1009 A third disturbing factor that has arisen since Second Reading is of grave concern in the inner cities, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) have referred to it. The withdrawal of any new schemes from the urban programme and the stopping of any new schemes for section 11 projects gives us a clear indication that, in the Department, the move is towards property and land.
My good Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) referred to the fact that the Government's policy seems to be based on the theory that, if one gets land and puts buildings on it, they will somehow fill up with jobs and some of the prosperity will trickle down. I can only say that, if the trickle-down effect worked, it would surely have been in evidence in 1987–88, at the height of the Lawson boom. In fact, in the inner cities, life was as wretched, unemployment was as high and health and education were as bad.
The new clause would broaden the aims of the initiative and permit the Minister to operate in accordance with the admirable example of the Scottish Development Agency, not only in providing land but in concerning himself with the firms that occupy it. It is interesting to compare two things that have happened in the past week, one of them in Scotland and one in England. In the case of the Hoover factory in Scotland, the SDA became involved. Amazingly, it fought off a French attack on jobs, with the result that the factory in Scotland is staying while one in France is closing. Compare that with what happened in England, where the Prime Minister's response to the plight of Leyland DAF was that it was a matter for the receiver.
The new clause would also permit the Minister to take another look at the social aspect of the inner-city programme, which is in danger of disappearing altogether; if that happens, it will bring tragedy to the inner cities.

§ Mr. Redwood
We have had a wide-ranging debate on the general objectives of the agency. The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) at least wanted the urban regeneration agency to come to Leeds. He would be even better advised to help the council to identify land that would be a suitable case for treatment for the URA. Many city councils are doing just that—clear evidence that there is a need for the agency and that many local authorities wish to work with it.
I have always stressed that the arrangements should be based on partnership and have always predicted that there will be quite enough willing volunteers with ideas and schemes to enable Lord Walker, who will find himself much wanted around the country, to get off to a good start and with the money, skills and enthusiasm that the URA will bring to the vital task of city regeneration.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, East does not think that there is enough SSA and grant in Leeds, in comparison with Labour boroughs in London, for example. I assure him that the same formula applies to London as to Leeds and that it takes into account the very factors of need that he identified in his speech or other factors that are substitutes for those. Of course, the grant must be awarded in part in relation to the need that is defined.
It was a pleasure to her two Labour Members—the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson)—expressing pride in their 1010 respective cities, and to see the introduction of a little competition in the Labour party over the question of to where the URA might move and live.
The issue of bad education will not fall primarily to the URA, and I am surprised that some Opposition Members think that the URA should have widened powers to involve itself in the education process. That is what the hon. Member for Leeds, East seemed to imply. It is true that there are schools in the inner cities whose results are poor and whose children's ambitions are not set high enough. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has introduced a number of proposals to lift the standards of performance in schools throughout the inner cities—a vital part of the regeneration strategy.

§ Mr. Mudie
We discussed this matter in Committee. In the past, the Minister's Department, through the regeneration programme, has paid for computers which have been used extensively to help primary school children with reading and maths. The Minister's Department has done sterling work in building, outfitting and even staffing child-care facilities which have allowed working mothers to get training that they would not have received if they had not had those facilities through the excellent urban programme. That is why I want the urban programme to continue.

§ Mr. Redwood
The money which is granted through the general grant and SSA settlement for local authorities gives much more money per pupil in the hard-pressed, inner-city areas than elsewhere. We wish to see those local education authorities rise to the challenge and deliver the standards we think they can achieve to raise the performance in schools. I do not believe that children in the inner cities are less able than children elsewhere. If more money is given, as it is, why can the results not be better?
If individual local authorities wish to bid for additional moneys which have certain educational benefits, there is the city challenge process to which some have responded. Some local authorities have seen the importance of an education strategy within the general regeneration strategy.

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson
In view of the Minister's insistence that local authorities are interested in raising the standards of education training in the inner cities, why have the Government announced the winding down of section I I moneys granted by the Home Office? The vast proportion of those moneys goes to teachers who are specifically targeted at some of the most deprived people, the black and ethnic majority, which is especially necessary to put that positive action into education and training.

§ Mr. Redwood
We have substantially expanded the amount of money going to city challenge and the urban programme combined next year, and a number of initiatives are being launched. We have also increased the grant available to local authorities.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough made a number of points in her speech. I agree with her that economic policy geared to recovery is the most vital thing for inner-city renewal and regeneration. That is why I welcome the 6 per cent. interest rates and the signs that economic recovery will now occur and start to lift the economy out of recession. I hope that the hon. Lady also welcomes that as the most important thing to promote recovery.
1011 The hon. Lady complained that £318 million out of the urban budget of £1 billion goes to the south-east, especially to London. It is quite true that money goes to Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Southwark. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would be the first to say how important that is. If there were more Labour London Members in the House, they would be standing up for their part of the country in the way that some northern Members have done already.

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson
rose—

§ Mr. Redwood
I will not give way because I have to make progress.
There is a lot of need in those areas of London. I make no apology for the fact that we are trying to do something about the issues in London, just as we are trying to tackle them in Leeds and other northern cities, including Sheffield, from where the hon. Lady comes.
Two Labour Members made the point that they do not think that we have the right structure of government in the United Kingdom to get grants and subsidies from the European Community. How wrong that is. It is not the system of government. The fact is that we have no objective I region on the mainland of Britain because no area was poor enough when the system was drawn up to qualify for that status. That status gets the lion's share of the money on the good socialist principle that the money should be given to the poorest. Of course, that means primarily the areas to the south of the Community, not areas on the mainland of Britain.
At present, the United Kingdom Government are listening to representations on whether it is possible to lobby successfully for any change in the map, but it will have to be based on sensible criteria. It will still be the case that regional policy in the Community will help the southern member states more than the United Kingdom because, clearly, they are poorer.

5.45 pm

§ Mr. Jim Cunningham
Does the Minister agree that one of the main vehicles for attracting grant to Britain is the Midlands economic forum, which has replaced the West Midlands county council? That forum is one of the few vehicles in the United Kingdom which can define the needs for the area in terms of grant and is one of the mechanisms to ensure that the Government operate within a European system to award the grants.

§ Mr. Redwood
We have a first-class system of ensuring that we get the grants for which we are eligible. The Government's prime objective is to get a just return from our contributions to the Community for the reasons which everyone understands.
I cannot agree with Opposition Members who say that the Docklands development corporation is a sick joke and has done nothing of value. I suggest that they tell that to those people who are proud of their new homes and pleased with the major housing that has been developed in partnership through the Docklands development corporation. Opposition Members should tell that to the many hundreds of people who have new jobs and the people who have a better built and recreational environment because of what the Docklands development corporation has achieved.
I stand by the remarks I made, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) tried to 1012 ridicule, when I said that Canary wharf would be a famous name in London. Events of the past few months and years have made Canary wharf even more famous. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that and welcome the day—which will come—when everyone will see that Canary wharf is a development full of tenants, generating jobs and a symbol of the new prosperity of that area.

§ Mr. Henderson
Does the Minister recall that, in his book on popular capitalism, he said that the Government would be able to get their money back after 10 years of investment in the Canary wharf project? Rather than the Government getting their money back, does he not accept that the developers are asking for more money to save the project?

§ Mr. Redwood
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits to see what happens next. A good time horizon was set out in the book. I hope that he will agree with the objective that, if the Government can get some of their money and subsidy back, they should aim to do so. I see the hon. Gentleman agreeing with that point.

§ Mr. Soley
rose—

§ Mr. Redwood
I must make progress because there are other important debates to come to which we wish to listen.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey got to the nub of the issue. He said that there is a great deal of vacant land in the cities and that it needs tackling. That is why he should support our version of the urban regeneration agency which is before the House tonight. We agree with the hon. Gentleman and we will do something about it by concentrating those resources.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about planning permissions for heliports. I have been told that a heliport may need planning permission, depending on whether it is a development or not. That is an issue into which those who are concerned must look. They would certainly need a Port of London Authority licence which will require negotiation and satisfaction of the authority about the circumstances. The Secretary of State for Transport has reserve powers on noise control. There are a number of issues which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will explore with his local communities.
I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman about his suggestion that any development by the urban regeneration agency should be considered in an environmental context. Of course, it should and it will because of the way in which housing and urban development and planning legislation are structured.
In Committee and elsewhere, we have made it clear that the normal circumstance is one in which the urban regeneration agency will need planning permission from the local authority. Whatever happens, it will have to be in the context of the unitary development plan or the structure and local plan in the area involved. I assume that all the relevant environmental issues will have been thought through in the local and national proposals and consultations which are undergone for the normal planning process.
In Committee, I also made it clear that, if the development control powers are to pass to the URA, there will be three important guarantees: first, the House must permit those powers to the URA; secondly, those powers will still be within the framework of the UDP or the local 1013 or structure plan; and, thirdly, the URA will proceed by the same means as a local authority would proceed. In most normal cases there will be the usual opportunity for consultation and granting of opinion from the local community.

§ Mrs. Helen Jackson
rose—

§ Mr. Redwood
I must press on, because we have to proceed to the next business; otherwise, the hon. Lady knows that I would be happy to give way.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said that property-led strategies are not enough on their own. I entirely agree, and that is why we have city challenge and big programmes through local authorities with the grants which we offer them and the powers which they have been granted by Parliament, and it is why we have a number of other initiatives in education, tackling crime, training and housing. Of course, there needs to be more than a property-led strategy, but to tackle the 150,000 identified derelict and vacant acres needs vision, money and skill. That is what the urban regeneration agency will bring.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North favours much wider powers for this unelected body. That sits uneasily with the new stress in Labour policy on giving powers to elected Governments and local authorities. We believe in a URA with a focused remit and accountable to the House. The other policies should be implemented through general Government strategy or by local authority powers.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
Will the Minister deal with the other point of my amendment—that the principal duty of the URA should be to the residents of the area affected?

§ Mr. Redwood
As I envisage the URA working by agreement with the local authority, I assume that the local authority will put proposals to the URA which reflect local opinon; so that point is taken care of. It is also taken care of in the planning process in the way that I have described.
While I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North is at least concentrating on inner-city issues, unlike his boss who seems to concentrate on the monarchy and telling us that he travels first class. the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark in his new clause, and I urge the House to reject it.

§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. I well recall the first time I saw a picture of him with his boyish grin lounging next to a lamp post outside the Palace of Westminster. It was in an article in The Sunday Times in May 1988, in which it was predicted that by the end of the decade he would be the leader of his party. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it was not. The lamp post went on to be used several times by the stray dogs of Westminster and the hon. Gentleman went on to become Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.
This has been a good debate. We have had several excellent speeches from former leaders of local authorities. I commend the speeches made by hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who was a councillor for 11 years and chair of economic development for eight years on Sheffield council. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, 1014 South-East (Mr. Cunningham) is a former leader of Coventry city council and was a councillor for 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) was a councillor for eight years and for four years leader of the Labour group on Stockport council. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) was a councillor for 20 years and leader of Leeds city council for 10 years: he will forgive me if I do not spend five minutes praising him—in view of the time, he will have to make do with a few seconds.
All my hon. Friends presented the face of inner-city life in Britain today. They put to the House their views on the Government's inner-city policy in the past few years. As we vote on the new clause, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Government's commitment to our inner-city areas:
We take pride in our cities", the Conservative party told us in its election manifesto, which was rather oddly entitled, "The Best Future for Britain". On page 38 the Conservative manifesto said:
Right across Britain they have been given a new lease of life and areas that had been run down have been transformed. Let us examine that extraordinary claim in the light of the Government's present proposals.
The urban regeneration agency, the objectives of which we seek to amend in the new clause, has a long and interesting history. It was not the brainchild of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities but that of the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now President of the Board of Trade. On 16 February 1992, The Sunday Telegraph reported that he was urging the Prime Minister to accept a powerful body to spearhead … regeneration … an English development agency that would lead the drive to revive the inner cities". The Prime Minister obviously disagreed. It was explained in the report that his Cabinet colleagues were putting up stiff opposition because they suspected that the right hon. Member for Henley intended to use the URA as a stalking horse for a more interventionist industrial policy after the election. If only that had been true.
The Guardian reported on 23 April 1992 that Lord Walker, who has been appointed to head the agency, intended to use it to develop a second Whitehall base for Michael Heseltine's brand of industrial intervention … Although Mr. Walker will officially be reporting to Michael Howard … it is expected that he will keep open his private lines of communication with Mr. Heseltine. That, I presume, explains why every second clause of the Bill says that the URA cannot act without the permission of the Secretary of State. Under the proposals in the Bill, Lord Walker will surely have to ask the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities or the Secretary of State if he may blow his nose.
It is clear that the Minister did not want the President's baby and, having been forced to carry it, has virtually strangled it at birth. New clause 14 is intended to breathe a little life into the agency and to give that life some purpose other than as a facilitator for property developers.
We believe that the statutory objects and functions of the agency should include creating and preserving jobs. That is a task made even more necessary and difficult as the Government proceed with the destruction of 34,000 inner-city jobs through the abolition of the social programme, which was mentioned by so many of my hon. 1015 Friends. Ministers must face the fact that one does not breathe life back into our inner cities merely by reclaiming land and persuading someone to build on it. Much mention has been made of Canary Wharf, which surely must have taught them that lesson.
Some £4 out of every £10 of the Government's urban block expenditure went to docklands in 1991. The £1.1 billion of public money spent on docklands created 13,500 jobs. By comparison, the urban programme has created and preserved 230,000 jobs since 1985 and currently supports 33,000 jobs at a cost of less than £240 million a year. The Opposition care about inner-city policy because we care about the people who live there. We ask ourselves what the agency will do for them.
Sustainable regeneration will not come about by developing land and waiting for the effects to trickle down to the wretched inhabitants. Sustainable regeneration will come about by creating jobs in the inner cities and by providing the training and the educational and social projects which will enable the inhabitants to fill those jobs and to live decent lives in those areas. Those are exactly the type of projects that the Government are destroying with the destruction of the urban programme. Ministers do not understand that. Indeed, that is why they will oppose the new clause.

§ Mr. Redwood
How will there be new jobs if there will not be property reconstruction? Do not areas need factories, shops and other new buildings to bring new jobs in?

§ Mr. Vaz
We do not need any lectures from this Government and this Minister about the provision of jobs when so many jobs have been destroyed by what the Government have done. We have always said that we wanted sustainable jobs which will last for a long time, not the short fixes that the Minister and his policies have ensured have occurred in the inner cities.
On 3 November 1992, the Secretary of State said:
Let me assure the House that I intend the agency to work hand in hand with local authorities."—[Official Report, 3 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 163.] Where is the duty to consult? He will recall the farce of consultation on the urban programme: a private secretary in the Under-Secretary of State's office wrote to local authority leaders informing them that the programme was to be ended. The voluntary sector, which received some £50 million from the urban programme, did not even get a letter. The Minister will also recall that local authorities and others were encouraged over several months to prepare their bids for the urban programme—bids which cost millions of pounds which the Government still have not managed to refund.
Where is the money for the inner cities? The answer is clear: it has been squandered on the poll tax. Let us never forget that the poll tax was the Secretary of State's invention. The squandering of that money has left nothing for our inner cities. That shows either contempt for the people of our inner cities or breathtaking incompetence: I invite my hon. Friends to decide which more aptly describes the attitude of Ministers. That is why the new clause includes a statutory duty to consult local authorities. The Secretary of State has demonstrated that he is unfit to be left with that responsibility.
1016 6 pm
The Minister, for all his talk of partnership with local authorities, is like a battle-hardened veteran who cannot forget that he used to be at war. He wants the agency to override local authorities' planning powers. A sign of how much he is stuck in the past is that even those organisations which used to support him now see no virtue in going ahead without partnership with the local authorities, or in a central Government quango overriding local democracy. The Conservative party claims to be the party of democracy, but the Bill contains no commitment that the Urban Regeneration Agency's board will include representatives of democratically elected local authorities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for drawing my attention to the book written by the Minister. It is interesting to read the first words on page I in chapter I, headed: Democracy breaks out: the long road to freedom". Perhaps the Minister can remember them and quote them with me. He wrote: Around the world there are important stirrings for freedom"— freedom for everyone except local authorities, which are democratically elected by local people.
Last week I went to Manchester to see the excellent urban programme work carried out by the Labour council there. Councils such as Sheffield, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham and Newcastle have used their limited powers to assist urban regeneration. What support have they received from the Secretary of State? He has become the Hughie Green of inner-city policy—turning it into a game of "Opportunity Knocks", handing out peanuts with one hand, while with the other the Government have robbed local authorities of £60 billion since 1979. According to the Government's figures, they plan to cut urban block expenditure by almost 30 per cent. in the next three years; the only numbers rising as fast as the crime and unemployment figures in our inner cities are the number of inner-city programmes with silly names and less resources.
We need a policy for people, not for buildings. We tabled the new clause because we passionately believe that as we move towards the millenium our inner cities deserve much better than the contempt that they have received from this uncaring Government.

§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

§ The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 307.

1018

Division No. 148]	[6.2 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Bermingham, Gerald
Adams, Mrs Irene	Berry, Dr. Roger
Ainger, Nick	Betts, Clive
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Blair, Tony
Allen, Graham	Blunkett, David
Alton, David	Boyce, Jimmy
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Boyes, Roland
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Bradley, Keith
Austin-Walker, John	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Barnes, Harry	Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Barron, Kevin	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Battle, John	Burden, Richard
Bayley, Hugh	Byers, Stephen
Beckett, Margaret	Caborn, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bell, Stuart	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Bennett, Andrew F.	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Benton, Joe	Cann, Jamie

1017

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Hoon, Geoffrey
Chisholm, Malcolm	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clapham, Michael	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hoyle, Doug
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clelland, David	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Coffey, Ann	Hutton, John
Cohen, Harry	Illsley, Eric
Connarty, Michael	Ingram, Adam
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Corbett, Robin	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jamieson, David
Corston, Ms Jean	Johnston, Sir Russell
Cousins, Jim	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Cox, Tom	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Cryer, Bob	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cummings, John	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Jowell, Tessa
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)	Keen, Alan
Dafis, Cynog	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Dalyell, Tam	Khabra, Piara S.
Darling, Alistair	Kilfoyle, Peter
Davidson, Ian	Kirkwood, Archy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Leighton, Ron
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Lewis, Terry
Denham, John	Litherland, Robert
Dixon, Don	Livingstone, Ken
Dobson, Frank	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Donohoe, Brian H.	Llwyd, Elfyn
Dowd, Jim	Loyden, Eddie
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Lynne, Ms Liz
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	McAllion, John
Eagle, Ms Angela	McAvoy, Thomas
Eastham, Ken	McCartney, Ian
Enright, Derek	Macdonald, Calum
Etherington, Bill	McFall, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)	McKelvey, William
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Mackinlay, Andrew
Fatchett, Derek	McLeish, Henry
Faulds, Andrew	Maclennan, Robert
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	McNamara, Kevin
Fisher, Mark	Madden, Max
Flynn, Paul	Mahon, Alice
Foster, Derek (B' p Auckland)	Mandelson, Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)	Marek, Dr John
Foulkes, George	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Fraser, John	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Gapes, Mike	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Garrett, John	Martlew, Eric
George, Bruce	Meacher, Michael
Gerrard, Neil	Meale, Alan
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Michael, Alun
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Godsiff, Roger	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Golding, Mrs Llin	Milburn, Alan
Gordon, Mildred	Miller, Andrew
Gould, Bryan	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Graham, Thomas	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Morgan, Rhodri
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Morley, Elliot
Grocott, Bruce	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Gunnell, John	Mowlam, Marjorie
Hain, Peter	Mudie, George
Hall, Mike	Mullin, Chris
Hanson, David	Murphy, Paul
Hardy, Peter	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Harman, Ms Harriet	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Harvey, Nick	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	O'Hara, Edward
Henderson, Doug	Olner, William
Heppell, John	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Parry, Robert
Hinchliffe, David	Patchett, Terry
Hoey, Kate	Pendry, Tom
Home Robertson, John	Pickthall, Colin
Hood, Jimmy	Pike, Peter L.

1018

Pope, Greg	Spearing, Nigel
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)	Steinberg, Gerry
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Stevenson, George
Prescott, John	Stott, Roger
Primarolo, Dawn	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Quin, Ms Joyce	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Radice, Giles	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Raynsford, Nick	Tipping, Paddy
Redmond, Martin	Turner, Dennis
Reid, Dr John	Tyler, Paul
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Vaz, Keith
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'fry NW)	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Roche, Mrs. Barbara	Walley, Joan
Rogers, Allan	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Rooker, Jeff	Watson, Mike
Rooney, Terry	Welsh, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wicks, Malcolm
Ruddock, Joan	Wigley, Dafydd
Salmond, Alex	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Sedgemore, Brian	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Sheerman, Barry	Wilson, Brian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Winnick, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wise, Audrey
Simpson, Alan	Wray, Jimmy
Skinner, Dennis	Wright, Dr Tony
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Mr. John Spellar and
Snape, Peter	Mr. Gordon McMaster.
Soley, Clive

1020

§ Question accordingly negatived.