Plymouth Development Corporation

HC Deb 10 March 1993 vol 220 cc1058-79

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, dated 20th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.—[Mr. Redwood.]

12.33 am

Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North)

I am grateful for the unexpected opportunity properly to open the debate. I thought that the Minister might have taken the opportunity, with such a full House, to put a strong case for the establishment of an urban development corporation in Plymouth. I thought that he and many of his hon. Friends would have considered it an important contribution to economic development, not only for Plymouth but for the south-west. An explanation of the Government's policy on urban and economic regeneration would have been helpful. He could have commented on the work of other urban development corporations since their establishment in 1981.

As the Minister knows, there has not been complete unanimity, even among Conservative Members, about the establishment of such organisations. It was not that hon. Members believed that the establishment of urban development corporations could have damaged economic development in those areas, but that more effort could have been made towards regeneration had they been designed differently.

Following his appointment as the Government's ambassador to Tyne and Wear—my own area—the Minister will be aware of the different views on the establishment of urban development corporations throughout the north-east. It is pleasing to see hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-east in their places tonight; perhaps they will participate in the debate.

The Minister will also know that there are different views on the success of those urban development corporations. I would have thought that he would want to itemise at least some of their strengths, and acknowledge some of the weaknesses that have been apparent not only to those who take a close interest in the work of the development corporations but to others whose work in the community has been affected—in the business community, the voluntary sector or other sectors. I hoped that the Minister would have made a stronger case than simply formally moving the resolution.

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

It is for the convenience of the House at this late hour if I reply at the end of the debate to points that have been raised, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman has serious questions to ask, I will answer them, but had he known a little more about Plymouth, he might have known that the Labour-controlled city council is keen on the proposal and is looking to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to expedite the business and vote for the motion.

Mr. Henderson

I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House that the Government were persuaded to establish an urban development corporation in Plymouth by the Labour-controlled council, which recognised the terrible state of the economy in that city and the need to do something to start regeneration. I assure the House that the Opposition are not attempting to delay the establishment of the urban development corporation.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Is there not a certain arrogant and sinister attitude on the part of the Minister, who has been given powers to introduce an order defining an area and giving it advantages over other areas? It is an important power, granted by primary legislation in the House. The order is not subject to amendment; we have to take it or leave it. It is subject to a maximum time of one and a half hours, and the Minister did not even have the courtesy to explain what governed the issue of the order and outline the powers that he is using.

It is an example of the overweening arrogance of a Government who, in 1992, turned out more statutory instruments than any Government in the history of Parliament. It is an arrogant use of power by the Government, who are piling on more regulations, the most unaccountable part of our parliamentary democracy, than any previous Government.

Mr. Henderson

I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I am glad that he has brought them to our attention, not only in regard to the issues we are discussing tonight but, as he rightly points out, on a number of other issues where shortened parliamentary procedures have been adopted in preference to a full debate.

The Opposition make no attempt to delay the establishment of the urban development corporation. Somewhat cynically, the Government announced their intention to establish such a body in the run up to the general election, and there has been much criticism in Plymouth of the fact that it has now taken nearly 12 months for the Government to lay an order in the House to that effect. If there are any criticisms about delay, the Government should remember their apparent difficulties in introducing the measure.

Our purpose in praying against the order was to enable a full debate to take place in the Chamber, albeit in an hour and a half, on developments in the dockyards in Plymouth and the linked issues of economic development throughout that city and its travel-to-work area.

I would argue—I hope that my case convinces at least some hon. Members—that, if the important aim of regenerating the dockland and the travel-to-work areas in Plymouth is to be achieved, it must be done in the context of the economic development of the whole of the south-west region. People in that part of the country recognise the absolute importance of Plymouth as a major centre, which encompasses a significant proportion of the population, the economic activity and the potential economic activity in the south-west. They recognise that, if Plymouth does well, the whole of the south-west does well.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's new-found concern for the welfare of the south-west. Is he saying, with the authority of an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, that he is in favour of the contract for the refitting and overhaul of Trident going to Devonport rather than Rosyth? Is that the Opposition's view? If so, we welcome it.

Mr. Henderson

I rather suspected that that matter would be raised by Conservative Members. I have already had some discussions today on that matter, in another forum. The policy of the Labour party is that the refitting of Trident is of such strategic importance that a country such as Britain requires options. That means that a capability must be retained in both Rosyth and Plymouth, so that Britain can properly maintain its armed forces. Opposition defence spokespersons have made that position quite clear, and I reiterate it this evening.

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton)

Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that it is Labour party policy to have a nuclear capability in both Rosyth and Devonport to maintain a Trident boat? Has he any idea what the cost of that would be?

Mr. Henderson

The hon. Gentleman has not considered what has been happening previously with the refitting of important MOD vessels. Maintaining a Trident submarine does not occupy all the work of any particular yard. What I am saying, and what those involved in shipbuilding and ship repair recognise, is that a yard in the modern world must have a greater flexibility than has been the case with some yards.

Some yards in the north of England may suffer because of their over-concentration on one form of naval refit. Given a joint capability between Rosyth and Devonport, into that can be built a capability to undertake other important work for the MOD. I am sure that those who work in the dockyards at both Devonport and Rosyth will welcome the Labour party's position.

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)

Rather than discussing the Labour party's view on the nuclear refit contract, what we should be discussing—and what I thought Conservative Members would have raised—is the Government's procrastination and delay with the contract. Indeed, Conservative Members have often said that the Government have subjected the contract to delay. That delay is harming the economic future of the area.

Mr. Henderson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point that concerns people both in the dockyard and in the whole of the Plymouth community.

The reason for the order is that the Government recognise that, even if the refitting of Trident goes to Devonport, there will still not be sufficient employment to regenerate the dockland and the wider economic areas of Plymouth, and that further action is required. Indeed, when the Minister replies, he may argue that a UDC is a proper way to proceed.

I hope to establish that the UDC acting alone would be insufficient to achieve adequate urban regeneration in Plymouth, a city which has served the nation well. If my history is reasonably accurate, it has served the country from Elizabethan times, and perhaps before, through two world wars to the present. It is regrettable, however, that the city has fallen on hard times. There has been a serious decline in naval dockyard work and the work force in the yard has been halved over the past five years. The consequences of the recession in the United Kingdom generally, and in the south-west particularly, have been felt deeply in Plymouth during recent years. There is much evidence to confirm the difficulties that the city faces.

In the past, it would have been extremely surprising to find Plymouth high on the list of cities and urban areas qualifying for urban aid. Unfortunately, that is now the reality, and that fact reflects the difficulties that the city faces. Since the late 1980s, Plymouth has been eligible for urban aid. Unemployment is 13.4 per cent., which is damaging for such a city. It is similar to the levels of unemployment that are to be found in areas in the north of the country, which have traditionally suffered from the difficulties of economic degeneration.

In the Plymouth, Sutton constituency, which covers part of the area in which the proposed UDC will be employed, unemployment has increased by 104 per cent. over the past three years.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) I went to Plymouth several times in the late 1980s as a member of the Public Accounts Committee? That stemmed from work that we had been doing as members of the Committee on the contractorisation of management in the dockyard. We were able to predict the immense damage that would be done to the yard by the arrangements that the Government were introducing. When I went to Plymouth, everyone recognised that it was inevitable that there would be major redundancies. Plymouth then was not in a position to deal with the problems that were to confront it in the future. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on that.

Mr. Henderson

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the matter. A point which has been made forcefully to me over the past three years, during which I have made numerous visits to the south-west, including Plymouth, is that, when contractorisation or privatisation is under way, there is concern only with work which existed in the past or, at the very best, which currently exists. It seems that no one is concerned with how work will be created or generated in future. That is because very few will have a stake in that work, and that is one of the great weaknesses of privatisation. That has been felt deeply by the work force at the dockyard at Plymouth.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

When the Government were considering contractorisation, there was an argument in Plymouth about the nature and nationality of the company that was being considered for the contract. This was many years ago, but there was a great deal of argument about Brown and Root. It was felt that, because it was not a British company, it would never understand the dilemma of running a management system that would lead to unemployment. It was felt that the fact that it was not a British company would detract from its ability to secure the future of the yard.

I think that events have proved that correct. Once that contractor came in, it was the beginning of the end for the city. Over the years, many have complained about what happened.

Mr. Henderson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If I had more time, I would make it clear that I do not take a narrow nationalistic view of economic development or even economic ownership. There are occasions when that can be an advantage, as some of my hon. Friends from Sunderland have acknowledged. But there are instances where ownership is transferred to a foreign source—foreign to a particular area, not necessarily foreign in a nationality sense—which means that is has less of a commitment to the traditions and future prosperity of an area.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may wish to comment further on that point, which I am sure a number of his constituents will have made to him.

As the Minister said in an intervention, the Labour-controlled city council in Plymouth supports the establishment of the urban development corporation. The Opposition also support it. But there is concern about the delay in establishing the body. As unemployment in, and the economy of, the Plymouth area continue to deteriorate relentlessly, there is no way in which that damage can be redressed. The delay in establishing the development corporation has further weakened the ability of the Plymouth economy to tackle the problems it faces and to begin regeneration.

I also welcome the close liaison between the local authority and the Department of the Environment on the analysis of the problems that face Plymouth—the urban degeneration that has taken place in recent times and the need to work together to try to establish a basis for future prosperity.

It is important that there is that consensus, so that often unnecessary disputes about planning and the location and nature of particular developments, which has often occurred in other urban development corporations where there has not been such a consensus, can be avoided and the best use made of limited resources. That can happen when planning priorities are agreed.

I welcome the change in the Government's position and their recognition of the increasing need to work closely with a local authority on any development schemes in our urban areas. The commitment given by the local authority in Plymouth augurs well for success in future if other conditions, which I hope to mention later, are met.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend talks about the willingness to work together, but we have a reference in the explanatory note to eight members, in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman. Has my hon. Friend any information on how those eight members will be selected? Will they be representatives of the local authority—

Mr. Redwood

Yes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Why did not the Minister make a speech setting out such matters, instead of moving the motion formally so that hon. Members would not have to intervene to secure the facts? My hon. Friend might be able to help me.

Mr. Henderson

I can help my hon. Friend. I have been advised by the local authority that it has some concord with the Government on the way in which the board will be established. I am not sure whether it agrees 100 per cent. with the Government's proposal on board membership. I understand that a chairman has still to be found. However, the Minister may be able to announce this evening that that problem has been overcome. The local authority has, to some degree, accepted the structure of the board, and I think that it hopes to participate in it.

Mr. Streeter

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hostility shown this evening by Opposition Members towards the Plymouth UDC, particularly expressed by the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will be noticed in Plymouth and not forgotten? The hon. Gentleman should take that on board.

Mr. Henderson

I had hoped that interventions would be helpful, but the hon. Gentleman's comment was not. I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). They were testing the issue, in the hope that the Minister, when he winds up, would meet some of the points that they raised and which are important to the people of Plymouth. The hon. Gentleman must get it firmly in his mind that the Labour party will take no lessons on urban regeneration from the Conservative party. I reaffirm, and made it unequivocally clear, that we support measures to support and stimulate economic regeneration—particularly in rundown city areas, including those of Plymouth.

Mr. Jamieson

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) visited Plymouth with me in 1986, and I was grateful to him for his support for the local economy. I wonder how many Conservative Members can say that they visited Plymouth dockyard in 1986 or earlier, and expressed great concern for its future and for that of Plymouth, and predicted many of the difficulties that Plymouth now faces.

Mr. Henderson

I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces a point that I tried to make. The people of Plymouth know the truth of my hon. Friend's remarks, and they showed, in the way that they expressed their preference at the last general election, whom they trust with the area's development.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Perhaps I may clarify my position in the light of earlier interventions. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I have no difficulty accepting the development corporation. In fact, I positively support the principle. However, we are debating the scrutiny of legislation.

The people of Plymouth will want to know that Parliament has considered the implications. We have no difficulty with the proposition—I hope that the proposal will deal with the problems of Plymouth, and certainly those that I identified when I visited it with my hon. Friend some years ago. I wish the people of Plymouth the very best of good luck with the proposal.

Mr. Henderson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his further intervention, which made clear the point that he intended to make clear earlier. My hon. Friend has stated his firm commitment to the people of Plymouth and to their need to develop their economy.

The Labour party supports the urban development corporation's establishment, but I have certain worries —which I have expressed on other occasions, in relation to the Urban Regeneration Agency that the Government hope, with the approval of another place, to establish shortly, linked to the activities of urban development corporations throughout the country.

My first concern relates to resources. I invite the House to compare the proposed level of resources for Plymouth development corporation, totalling £45 milion over five years, with the amount of public money that has been injected into Plymouth in the past, one way or another, in defence work or contracts. The sum of £45 million over five years is fairly small by comparison.

I make a comparison also with the amount of development money given to Wales. South Wales and south-west England have populations of similar size. Next year, the Welsh Development Agency will receive from the public purse £171 million for one year. That compares with £9 million for the Plymouth development corporation, and puts the Government's commitment into perspective.

I hope that the Government will have further thoughts about development in the south-west of England. If a strong case can be made for economic development stimulated by public finance in south Wales, where unemployment is 10.4 per cent., surely a similar argument can be advanced for the economic regeneration of the south-west of England, with a similar population and unemployment of over 10 per cent.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has said in our debates about the establishment of an Urban Regeneration Agency, perhaps he will recognise that, although urban development corporations can be of some value in tackling the specific problems of particular areas, if there is to be an overall economic regeneration, it is important that the whole region is on the way up and receives a stimulus. That cannot possibly be achieved through the efforts of the UDC, which has neither the powers nor the resources to tackle the problem.

The Minister should realise that what is really required for the economic regeneration of the south-west—and the full economic regeneration of Plymouth—is the establishment of a regional development agency similar to those established in both Wales and Scotland. That proposition carries wide support across the political divide in the south-west.

If the Government are serious about economic regeneration in Plymouth and the south-west, they should consider how the work of the proposed urban development corporation could be incorporated in the overall work that would be co-ordinated and undertaken by a development agency in the south-west. The establishment of such an agency was a firm Labour commitment at the last general election, and continues to be so: we recognise the importance of such bodies.

I hope that, in establishing the development agency, the Government will be able to build on the strengths that have been identified in the structures and work of UDCs in other parts of the country, and that they will recognise the failures of other development corporations.

The House recently debated the effectiveness of a UDC established in the east end of London, and a fairly wide argument has been conducted among all sorts of people involved in the question of urban regeneration and the best way in which it can be achieved. It has been alleged that the failures of the London dockland development corporation resulted largely from the adoption of an excessively narrow approach, based on the philosophy that, if a new property development is established, some use will have to be made of that development, and that there will be a trickle-down effect which will regenerate a wider area, incorporating the people who live in the area and providing them with work.

As the Minister well knows, the evidence of what has actually happened in docklands completely contradicts what was intended to happen. Docklands has been a complete failure, and many of its main projects have become white elephants. The classic example is Canary Wharf, an under-utilised property development which has done very little to regenerate the economy of that part of east London and very little to provide employment for people who were previously employed in the area and have lost their jobs, partly through the clearance of the area to provide an opportunity for property development. It has also done very little to incorporate the local community into the work of Canary Wharf: indeed, the project is not supported by the community.

As a result, only 15 per cent. of the Canary Wharf building is now occupied; 85 per cent. is redundant, with little prospect of reaching its full capacity in the near future. Of the three major companies that have taken a stake in Canary Wharf, one is the developer, which has used it as a base for its administration. The last thing that Plymouth needs is its own empty Canary Wharf overlooking Plymouth Sound. What Plymouth needs is an integrated project to regenerate this area.

The Minister will already have heard some of the arguments. They have not been put forward on a narrow, partisan, party political basis. My argument about the failure of property-led development has been put to the Minister by the developers upon whom he has to rely if there is to be any prospect of development in Plymouth. It is an argument that has been put to him by developers, development consultants, local businesses, the British Urban Regeneration Association and by the Minister's economic advisers, such as Professor Robson at Manchester university and Mr. Nigel Smith, a property consultant with Drivers Jonas.

Many others have also made the point forcefully to the Government: that there can be no proper economic development if we rely completely on property development, and that there have to be other forms of integrated development. That is what Plymouth and other parts of the country need.

Plymouth needs wider power to enable it to support the work of an urban development corporation that can be integrated into the structure of a development agency. I refer, for example, to the power to develop infrastructure that covers a wider area than that covered by the urban development corporation—to transport facilities and other utilities for the city of Plymouth. Wider powers are needed to enable aid and grant to be given to companies that need it, whether they are involved in engineering, shipbuilding, or other sectors of the economy. Powers are required to enable industrial promotion to take place. Powers are needed to provide marketing opportunities and business advice—all the things that are done by the Welsh Development Agency.

Those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the south-west may be unaware of Lord Walker's view. He has been appointed chairman of the Urban Regeneration Agency, which is to cover the rest of England, including the south-west. When Lord Walker was a Member of this House and Secretary of State for Wales, he recognised the importance of development agencies. In his autobiography, "Staying Power", he said: We calculated that by creating new businesses, helping existing companies to grow and attracting inward investment to Britain from overseas we could bring down unemployment to the lowest figure in England. He was talking about Wales at that point. 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 he says proudly— to expand the job. That is what Lord Walker says is necessary for Wales.

Some of Lord Walker's wisdom surely applies to the problems of the south-west of England. A regional development agency is needed to reinforce the work that can be conducted on a narrower geographical base by the urban development corporation.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on the arguments for urban regeneration that he has heard from many hon. Members since he assumed this responsibility nearly 12 months ago. He will hear other hon. Members say that it is crucial for the urban development corporation to have the resources that it needs if it is to make an impact on Plymouth's economy. Those resources must be comparable to those that are available for urban development in, for instance, south Wales.

There is a need for close liaison between Government Departments so that one Department is not running in one direction and another Department in a different direction. There is already some strain between the interests of the Ministry of Defence and those of the Department of the Environment over the establishment of the agency.

It is important that there should be no further delay in the establishment of the body. There is a need for the close liaison, which has been established with the council—a fact I welcome—to continue. Local people must be fully involved in any decisions made, and I hope that the Minister will agree that monitoring committees should be established where development work covers a very small area.

Many strengths have been identified in urban development corporations in other parts of the country, and I am sure that hon. Members will bring them to the Minister's attention. I hope that, in establishing the development corporation in Plymouth, the Minister will be able to incorporate the best practices and that he will recognise the forceful arguments made by virtually everyone involved in urban redevelopment. It cannot be undertaken successfully on a narrow basis—it cannot be undertaken if the basis of urban regeneration is property development alone. There is a need for a fully integrated approach, so that jobs have as important a role as property development.

1.10 am

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in an important debate about the Plymouth development corporation. Although the hour is late, it is never too late to put the case for Plymouth.

I was not impressed by or pleased with the grudging welcome given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to this important urban development corporation, which is greatly welcomed in Plymouth, even by the Labour-led city council. It is typical of the Labour party to put forward someone from the north-east to talk about an urban development corporation in the south-west, two areas about as far apart as they could be. The hon. Gentleman displayed a lack of knowledge of Plymouth, and of the Royal William yard in particular, by comparing it to Canary Wharf. There is absolutely no comparison. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman displayed such a lack of knowledge and did not see fit to welcome an exciting proposal.

The motion is the final parliamentary step of the Plymouth development corporation becoming a reality. We look forward with great excitement to 1 April when it will be up and running. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities for his personal effort in causing this day to arrive, as there was a danger in the autumn statement that the £45 million for Plymouth might disappear. We would have understood, but my hon. Friend fought diligently for the city. On 26 March, he is to speak at a conference in Plymouth; I can assure him not just of a warm welcome but of a hero's welcome. If he carries on in the same way, a statue will be erected to him on the Hoe, alongside that of Sir Francis Drake.

I wish to put the urban development corporation in context. The south-west is suffering from the effects of the recession. It has three traditional industries: agriculture, tourism and a defence-related industry.

Mr. Harris (St. Ives)

And fishing.

Mr. Streeter

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) reminds me that we also have a vital fishing industry, which he diligently protects at every opportunity. For different reasons, all those industries are experiencing difficulty. In that context, the UDC is very welcome.

We must also understand that Plymouth suffers from peripherality. It is more than 120 miles from any larger city. That cannot be said about any place other than London. It means that, in times of difficulty, no other industries are waiting to move to our part of the world.

I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged that Plymouth is a special case. The creation of the UDC is also a reflection of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to the south-west. It is good to see the commitment of which he speaks becoming a reality and taking concrete form tonight.

As has already been said, Plymouth has suffered from a rundown of the dockyard since 1985. We have lost 8,000 jobs in that period and unemployment now stands at roughly 14 per cent. It is also true, as I have often said in the House, that we are suffering from the uncertainty about the outcome of the Trident contract—if my voice is a little croaky, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is caused by the excitement of the hour. It is critical for our city that Plymouth be chosen for the work. We can do it well and cost-effectively, at a price that other parts of the country cannot match. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has not been able to confirm clearly to the House tonight that it is Labour party policy for the Trident contract to come to Plymouth. That will be noted in Plymouth.

Mr. Jamieson

Does the hon. Gentleman share my abject disappointment at the constant delay and change in dates for the announcement of the nuclear refit contract?

Mr. Streeter

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) for intervening in the debate. He knows only too well that it is my commitment to my constituents that I shall fight for them at every opportunity. Of course, the frustration that we have suffered in Plymouth at the delay in awarding the contract is a matter for concern.

Because we are in difficulty, we welcome the urban development corporation all the more. I see the corporation as the cavalry coming over the hill—£45 million over five years is a substantial sum in anyone's book. I believe that it will be a catalyst for change and progress in Plymouth. It will be a pump-priming exercise that will attract private sector investment. The Minister is already aware of the private sector activity in Plymouth which, in combination with the local authority, has already set up a company to shadow the corporation and incur some of the early expenditure so that time is not lost. I hope that the pump-priming exercise will produce jobs for the people of Plymouth. That is what our young people want—and I believe that the £45 million will be a catalyst, a springboard and a turning point which will lead to the creation of jobs for the people of Plymouth. That is why I welcome it so much.

Now I shall go into one or two details concerning the areas involved in the UDC. First, I hope that the Mount Wise area will be used primarily for development to raise extra cash for the other flagship facilities. The Royal William yard will be the flagship of the development, and the challenge for the board of the UDC will be to produce the right solution—the right scheme, which will be lively and attract inward investment.

The third area—RAF Mount Batten, in my constituency—must be kept for recreation. The people of Turnchapel, who live around the area, want it to be left as an open space for recreation, where the people of Plymouth can come and walk and enjoy the beautiful scenery and the beautiful sea. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that he will bring every pressure to bear on the board to listen to the voice of local people.

My hon. Friend may be aware that I attended a meeting of the Turnchapel residents and preservation association last Friday, and heard people's concerns about RAF Mount Batten. I pledged to them—I repeat that pledge tonight—that a month or so after the UDC is set up I will arrange a meeting between the residents of Turnchapel and the board so that the board, too, can hear the concerns of local people. That is what we want in Plymouth, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us assurances.

In replying to the debate, will my hon. Friend the Minister also confirm that one of the priorities for the board should be to ensure that local workers are engaged in any development work? Will he confirm that, as far as possible, local contractors will be engaged to do up the properties, for example, so that local people can enjoy the benefits?

One of the Labour party's many failings is that it does not welcome good news. It delights in talking things down, whether in the country generally or in Plymouth. Plymouth has gone through a difficult patch. We have real needs, of which the most pressing is the need for jobs. Today's move is welcome because it will lead to the creation of further jobs. Some Opposition Members talk down Plymouth, but with this Government's assistance it can be a boom town of the 21st century. It has so many things going for it: the attractive environment, the facilities that it affords, an excellent and skilled work force—[HON. MEMBERS: "An excellent Member of Parliament."] My hon. Friends are kind to refer to the representation that Plymouth, Drake and Plymouth, Sutton enjoy. I welcome the order. It is an important turning point for the city of Plymouth. It is to be welcomed widely in the House and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his efforts in making it a reality.

1.20 am

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport)

I too am pleased that the debate is taking place tonight and that it gives us the opportunity to discuss Plymouth and the economic needs of the south-west. Unlike the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I shall not congratulate the Minister on his comments. I shall wait until I hear them before congratulating him on them. I may do so when the debate has finished.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his comments of support this evening. I would not sneer at any hon. Member who spoke as warmly in favour of Plymouth as my hon. Friend has done tonight, wherever he came from.

To reinforce the point, I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his support over the years. He came to the dockyard many years ago and spoke to the work force, to the unions, to me and to others. He spoke warmly in favour of the work force. He accurately predicted what has now come to pass—that we should lose many jobs. The only way in which he was wrong was that he underestimated the number of jobs that would be lost. He was accused of scaremongering.

The development corporation proposal for Plymouth is to be welcomed. The proposal was first mooted way back in 1985. The hon. Member for Sutton said that he wanted to erect a statue in the Minister's honour. If we do erect a statue and if progress is made at the same rate as the announcement of the development corporation, the Minister will be drawing his pension before we see the unveiling of the statue. He can come to my constituency, in which the dockyard lies, and I shall be happy to unveil the statue.

It was in 1985 that the Secretary of State for Defence announced the release of the Royal William yard because it was surplus to requirements. It has taken us eight years to get to where we are now. The proposal has, like so many other proposals, been subjected to prevarication and delay. There has been little action over the years, and it has been very slow. My regret is that, during that time, the buildings that are owned by the Ministry of Defence have fallen further into decline and decay.

We now welcome the proposal for the Royal William yard, for Mount Batten and for Mount Wise, the three areas that we are discussing. There are many other areas of urban decay in Plymouth that need to be addressed. Many of those areas were outlined in the bid that Plymouth made last year for city challenge which, I regret to say, was unsuccessful.

Mr. Streeter

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, because I am sure that he is drawing to the end of his remarks, can he say whether the city has welcomed the £1.8 million from the urban partnership fund for which my hon. Friend the Minister is also responsible? Is not that substantial compensation for us not getting the city challenge bid?

Mr. Jamieson

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment about the length of my speech—a triumph of optimism over reality. We welcome any amounts that come to the city, small and late though they may be.

In a way, the south-west has suffered from having too good an image, which has concealed many of its problems. It is seen very much as a holiday and tourist area. Important and vital though that part of the economy is, we need more than that to survive. Over the years, Plymouth has needed more to survive.

For many years, Plymouth has been dependent on manufacturing industry, which has been linked almost exclusively to defence. The old town of Devonport in my constituency did not exist when Plymouth dock came to the area. The dockyard came first, in 1691, and the people were housed in hulks out in the sound. Later the town was built around the dockyard. So the dockyard came first and the people followed.

The whole south-west is dependent on defence-related industry. I believe that it is the most defence-dependent region in the whole EC. In the Plymouth travel-to-work area there is a total of 25,000 defence-dependent jobs or 21 per cent. of the work force. A survey by Bristol polytechnic in May 1991 estimated that in the whole south-west region 155,000 jobs were dependent directly or indirectly on defence.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Having told the House how important the defence industry is to his area, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he supports Labour party policy to reduce defence expenditure by £6 billion, which would probably have a massive jobs impact on his area?

Mr. Jamieson

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has brought a sour note of party politics into a debate about Plymouth. My constituents have suffered for many years from Tory defence cuts. There is over 50 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency due to cuts by the Government which he supports.

Total expenditure on defence in the region is £3.38 billion per year, which is 18.8 per cent. of United Kingdom defence expenditure. Recent world events and the volatile profile of defence expenditure prove that there will be more changes in defence needs in our area. In my constituency in the 1970s over 20,000 people were employed in the dockyard. In 1986 and 1987, when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington visited the dockyard, nearly 13,000 people were employed there. There are now just over 5,000.

Constituencies in the region are suffering very much because of unemployment. In my constituency there has been a 77 per cent. rise in unemployment over the last three years. The hon. Member for Sutton quoted the rise in his constituency as 104 per cent. In other areas, such as Barnstaple, Redruth, Camborne and Torbay, there is great concern about the state of the economy. If the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) were here, he could tell us that there has been an 82 per cent. increase in unemployment in his area. If the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) were here, she could tell us that the increase in unemployment in her area is 139 per cent.

Mr. Michael Bates (Langbaurgh)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are talking about the urban development corporation and that the Labour party strenuously opposed its establishment? Is he aware that a primary function of the urban development corporation is to sell the benefits of the city and attract inward investment? For the sake of Plymouth, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not play any part in the work of the urban development corporation, because that would not attract many people to the area.

Mr. Jamieson

I find it tiresome when hon. Members who probably do not know where Plymouth is intervene in this debate. When I met my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North the other day, he surprised me with his detailed knowledge of many roads and streets in my constituency. He probably knows my constituency much better than many of the Conservative Members who are gasping at present.

This order is a positive move forward. There have been some positive moves forward recently. Devonport Management Ltd. has done some limited work on diversification and is now repairing railway locomotive engines. At present, repairs are being made to privately owned ships in our dockyard. On Friday, I shall be visiting another company in the dockyard, Walker Wingsail, which has done excellent work in creating new jobs within the dockyard; but that work is limited and only a few jobs have been created.

I am glad that the Minister referred to Plymouth city council. In the past 18 months, that council has done more work than anyone to assist the economic regeneration in the area. It has been pro-active in helping the economy and has created co-operation among business, industry and commerce, the like of which we have not had for many years. The council must be heartily congratulated on that.

The hon. Member for Sutton will recall attending a presentation with me at which he congratulated the council on its Plymouth city challenge bid. The hon. Gentleman must admit that it was an excellent bid for the city.

The urban development corporation will provide £45 million. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is simply the first step down the road for Plymouth and the south-west. It will take much more than putting right buildings and the decay which has taken place over many years in the areas to which I referred to bring back the number of jobs to Plymouth and the south-west which is required. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will urgently appoint the chairman, the chief executive and the rest of the board.

I hope that not only will the board be set up urgently but that the jobs which are created in the first instance will go to people in Plymouth and the surrounding areas where the developments are to take place. In the past, those people were traditionally employed in those areas and they lost their jobs. In the constituencies of the hon. Member for Sutton and of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), and in my constituency, there are some depressing areas of unemployment. In some areas, male unemployment is more than 50 per cent. It is a serious situation. I hope that those unemployed people will be the first to find jobs.

I hope that this order is the first step down the road and that the Minister will tell us that he has further plans for the use of the buildings, the growth of the urban development corporation and more funding. I hope that we will see an announcement of the establishment of a regional development agency which will not only embrace the difficulties and problems in Plymouth. I hope that we can look forward to not only the redevelopment of Plymouth but to the much wider development of the whole of the south-west.

1.33 am

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) found the visit of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) of some assistance. I wish that I could report such a happy experience in my constituency. When the hon. Member for Workington came to Hale in my constituency, he held up a development which has still not taken place. The hon. Gentleman was aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrat chairman of the city council planning committee. That visit held up the development and destroyed the prospect of jobs.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I do not even know of the existence of the place that I am alleged to have visited—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the wrong one.

Mr. Harris

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—I thought that he did. I am sorry about that; I am attributing to the hon. Gentleman even more mischief than he usually makes around the country. It must have been one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues of like-minded intent. I wholeheartedly withdraw the remark.

My credentials—if I have any for this debate—are that for five years I had the privilege of representing Plymouth, albeit after Cornwall, in the European Parliament as the Member for Cornwall and Plymouth. In those days the Devonport dockyard was much larger, as the hon. Member for Devonport said, but the writing was on the wall for maintaining a dockyard of that size and that number of employees. It was clear—

Mr. Jamieson

It was not.

Mr. Harris

The hon. Member for Devonport says that it was not, but it was. It was recognised in the city at that time that a dockyard of that size could not be maintained. All that has happened since then has borne that out, partly because of this country's shrinking defence capacity.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I was disappointed by the response of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to the central issue of which dockyard would have the role of refitting Trident. Despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt to fudge the issue, it is clear that Devonport and Rosyth cannot both service Trident. If the hon. Gentleman is now saying that it is Labour party policy that the refitting work on Trident should go to both dockyards, I will give way to let him make that position clear.

Mr. Jamieson

Give us the Government policy.

Mr. Harris

The Government policy is a two-yard solution, but not—as I understand it—to have both yards servicing Trident. If that is the Labour party's policy, I am more than happy to sit down and let the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North clarify the position.

Mr. Henderson

I did not wish to take up any more of the time of the House. I thought that I had already clarified our position. The Labour party's policy is clear: there is a need to maintain options because of the strategic importance of Trident, which means the maintenance of both Rosyth and Plymouth. Both must have the capability of dealing with Trident, but they will clearly have to attract other work to make themselves viable in a wider context.

Mr. Harris

I do not want to labour the issue, but I still do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered the central point as to whether he believes that both dockyards can share the work of servicing Trident. I do not believe for one minute that they can. I therefore say unhesitatingly that the dockyard best equipped to carry out that function is Devonport. That must be the conclusion of any independent survey of the matter.

Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside)

As I am an independent person, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to stay seated having heard his comment. He must accept that both yards will put in a case for winning the contract. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want there to be fair battle between the two. That is why the decision has been delayed. I am sure that Rosyth will win the contract.

Mr. Harris

I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said, except his last point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said, we should have a fair fight. I am sure that the result will be that Devonport will win. However, let us move on from that contentious issue—[Interruption.] I am being goaded to attack the Liberal Democrats, but I will not do that.

I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said. All the parties in the south-west, including the Liberal Democrats, agree that we need some form of development agency which can operate more widely than the urban development corporation proposed for Plymouth. Devon and Cornwall need their own development agency and the funds and the means to compete against the unfair competition from Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. I endorse what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said about that.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, I would not like it to go out from the debate that somehow Plymouth, with all its difficulties, is in a hopeless position, because it is not. Plymouth has marvellous advantages. It is a vibrant and confident city, and from the time of Drake it has always looked outwards. Although in the past it has had an unhealthy over-reliance on the dockyard, in recent years it has gone a long way to try to correct that dependence.

In my five years as a Euro-MP, there was inward investment in industrial estates such as Estover. Firms incorporating modern technology came to the modern factories on those estates. I speak not just as a former Member of the European Parliament for Cornwall and Plymouth but as the Member of this Parliament for a Cornish constituency, albeit the one furthest from Plymouth.

The prosperity of parts of Cornwall is greatly bound up with the prosperity or otherwise of Plymouth and we have a vested interest, albeit an indirect one, in what happens there. What is good for Plymouth is certainly good for the parts of Cornwall that surround it. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Taylor) will agree on that. The wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) is recovering from a serious operation, which is why my hon. Friend is not present for the debate, but he would also agree, because a large number of his constituents work in Plymouth, many of them in the dockyard.

I wish Plymouth well. I am sure that the corporation will benefit not only Plymouth but Cornwall, especially south-east Cornwall. In the context of confidence, we must look to the strengths of Plymouth, one of which is the transformation of its polytechnic to a university. That is another asset, not just for Plymouth but for a wider area. I heartily welcome the Government's action, which will benefit not just Plymouth but Cornwall and the south-west.

1.44 am

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I shall be as brief as I possibly can.

It is of considerable importance to the economy of Devon and Cornwall that Plymouth is given this new lease of life. It is unfortunate that there has been an acrimonious tinge to tonight's debate, because in recent months there has been all-party support on many issues affecting Plymouth and the economy of Devon and Cornwall and I regret that to some extent that has dissolved this evening.

My constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) are directly and indirectly affected by what happens to the dockyard and to the wider economy of the city of Plymouth. It is estimated that some 30,000 jobs will be at risk if the dockyard goes down. It is part of the engine of recovery for a vulnerable economy with bad unemployment that the city should receive all the help that it can get.

My constituency has two of the top 10 unemployment black spots in the United Kingdom. We travel from the constituency to get jobs wherever we can—I suppose that that is why I come here.

Cornwall is highly dependent on defence-related industries, which affect not only the south-east of the county, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) pointed out. Some 4.5 per cent. of the Cornish gross domestic product is dependent on defence-related industries, and the south-west's research centres demonstrate that 5 per cent. of the total of Devon and Cornwall's gross domestic product is directly affected by Devonport.

That is why hon. Members in all parts of the House are so dismayed at the extent to which the Government have procrastinated over the Devonport decision. It is not that there has simply been more thought about it; they have repeatedly returned to the parties for support. In the Christmas Adjournment debate, I pointed out that it was totally unfair to keep a loyal work force on tenterhooks at Devonport and, indeed, at Rosyth. Since then, the Ministry of Defence has given the parties another chance to consider the decision; what was previously a Dutch auction has become a double Dutch auction, and it is time that the Government made up their mind.

Reference has been made to the resourcing of the urban development corporation, but the economic context in which the UDC will have to operate is clearly critical. In that regard, I wish to refer to EC funding.

As the Minister will know, his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry recently made a bid to the European Commission for objective 1 status for Devon and Cornwall. The inclusion of all of Devon and Cornwall automatically prevented the bid from being successful. On 3 March, in answer to my written question, the Minister made it clear that had Cornwall alone or Cornwall and Plymouth been able to make the bid, they almost certainly would have achieved objective 1 status. If that were done now, after devaluation, which has reduced our GDP figures, it would be below the 75 per cent. threshold. It is critical not only that we have the UDC, but that we take advantage of all the funding that we can get.

Mr. Harris

Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Commission determines the units put forward from Britain to qualify for objective 1 status. It was at the insistence of the Commission that Devon and Cornwall were lumped together. I heartily agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it was the fault of the Commission and not the Government.

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he is incorrect. The answer that I received from the Economic Secretary made it quite clear first, that the final decision is to be taken by the Council of Ministers" —[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 163] and, secondly, that the bid was put in for Devon and Cornwall and the possibility of a separate bid for Cornwall was not even considered. Until now, nobody has chosen what may well be the right option—to link Plymouth and Cornwall—which would almost certainly qualify to receive the support of the EC structural funds that are essential to ensure that the UDC is not simply a drop in the ocean but the beginning of something more substantial.

There are three important options, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support the proper funding of development agencies in Plymouth and the wider Cornish and Devon economy.

Much reference has been made to Sir Francis Drake. It is not widely known that he was actually a Member of this House. He represented the constituency of Bossiney, which is now in my constituency. He demonstrated that sometimes one has to stick together with the people in one's own area against the London Government. Indeed, he spent more time attacking the London Government than attacking the Spaniards.

Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury)

Rubbish.

Mr. Tyler

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read history or studied the career of Sir Francis Drake. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he was an effective buccaneer on behalf of his part of the country.

During recent months, there has been unanimity among Members of Parliament in the south-west, from all parties, that we need more support and investment to enable our economy to turn the corner. We are still at the bottom of a very severe slump. Conservative central office pointed out that that was why the Conservatives lost so badly to the Liberal Democrats. It is extremely important for the Government to show that they are now determined to pull our economy out of that slump.

1.50 am

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

We have had a good-humoured debate, despite both the lateness of the hour and what happened beforehand. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) accused me of arrogance when I offered more time for the House to hear the views of other hon. Members, who had important points to make, and offered to answer their points at the end of the debate, if time permitted. It is a shame that he has not been here to listen to the debate and to the answers to some of the points that he said were important and needed discussion.

A number of hon. Members raised important issues. It is right that we should press on quickly once the House has approved the motion tonight. I hope that, within a few days, I can announce the name of the new chairman of the urban development council. I also hope to press on quickly with the appointment of the full board of 10 members, including the chairman. I hope that we will reach rapid agreement with local councils. We wish to co-operate fully with them. We are proposing that five of the 10 board members should be representatives of the two councils concerned. Timing is very important and we will move forward rapidly. We are also in the process of drafting suitable advertisements for the post of chief executive. Once the chairman is announced, he will want rapidly to appoint a suitable chief executive.

I am glad that there was wide-ranging support from a number of hon. Members for the proposal in general, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—who I am glad to see back in his place—from the Opposition, after a little prompting, and from my hon. Friends, who have been strong in their support and who have worked hard to ensure that the UDC comes into being.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) adopted his usual line of welcoming public money but wanting to know whether there was enough of it—and then producing further proposals for even more money and even bigger bodies. There is a new Labour belief in regional non-elected quangos, in addition to the regional committees that the Opposition have also proposed. They want both regional committees and regional development quangos, but as always they have not said who would pay for them, by how much taxes would have to rise, and how the bodies would avoid becoming unduly bureaucratic.

We are proposing a formula that works—a UDC formula that has brought great benefits to many parts of the country through the 11 UDCs that are up and flourishing. That formula will harness the energies of the private sector to the public money that is available. It recognises the interrelationship between property development, land clearance, the creation of new jobs, the attraction of enterprise and the commitment that that can make to regenerating and improving the local community.

The hon. Gentleman and I have often debated the nature of urban regeneration, and I think that we agreed that is about more than property redevelopment and development. However, I think that, in his more honest moments, he would concede that property development plays an important part in creating the new environment in which jobs can materialise, and that jobs are important in giving hope, life and confidence to communities. That is one of the prime tasks of the UDC.

We have set out signs of the funding over a five-year period for the UDC from Government sources. There are land transfers to it in the areas identified on the map that is attached to the proposed order.

That will not be the sole funding for improving opportunities in Plymouth. We have already made available additional moneys through many programmes. Recently, £5 million in the form of city grant has been paid for projects in Plymouth. There has been derelict, land grant. Urban partnership money—£1.8 million, which will lever in other substantial sums—will produce much-needed road improvements, which in turn could trigger private investment. In addition, £2.5 million of estate action money has recently been passed to Plymouth, and more is to come. Under a variety of Government programmes, in addition to the UDC, money has been made available. I am sure that in future Plymouth will continue to benefit from the programmes that we are operating.

In addition, there are the substantial sums that are going to the county council and the city council. The councils have a significant role to play in important programmes that are related to the future prosperity of Plymouth and the adjacent region. It is—[Interruption ] The hon. Member for Workington asserts from a sedentary position that funding has been cut. He should study the figures. He will find that in recent years there has been a massive increase in Government funding of local government, and that has applied to Devon and Plymouth as it has to the rest of the country.

The hon. Gentleman laughs, because he knows that billions upon billions of extra pounds have been given in grants to local authorities throughout the country to strengthen the core services of education, training, social services and planning, which are so important to successful communities and which we thoroughly support. We believe also in getting value for that money and in introducing important policies to improve quality and efficiency. We shall ensure that the money is well spent.

I had no sympathy for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North when he went into another of his tirades about the London Docklands development corporation. It is not a relevant subject for this debate but his illustration was wide of the mark. The area involved is totally different from that in Plymouth. His criticisms of the LDDC, as always, were ill based and ill founded. The hon. Gentleman still does not understand that there is a great triumph throughout the docklands area and that there are five or six distinct parts of east London, several of which have been developed in an excellent way to produce affordable housing, jobs and inward investment. All this has transformed the area, which had been desecrated by Labour councils for years before.

Mr. Henderson

Does the Minister think that Canary Wharf has been a success? Would he want to repeat the scheme in Plymouth?

Mr. Redwood

It is much better to have large new buildings on that site than derelict and rundown docks with no economic function. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come with me to the area in five years time. I think that he will find then that there is a great success. It is one that will bring much prosperity and life to the area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and the city. I was flattered by his remarks, but I would not wish to suggest that I should stand alongside Sir Francis, who made such an important contribution to the life of the nation. I shall, of course, stand up for Plymouth, as I have in recent months. I believe that there is an important job of work to be done in the city and that we can do it in partnership with the people there, with suitable Government funding along the lines that I have outlined and identified in the House tonight and on other occasions elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton is right to say that the private sector is vital in Plymouth. It is clear that it can make a vital contribution. I welcome what it has done already. I am sure that the UDC will be asking it to do far more over the next five years as it goes about its life.

The UDC must listen carefully to local opinion. I am sure that it will welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion about the area of Turnchapel. There is the crucial question of how much of the land adjacent to it should be open space and what parts of the site should be identified for suitable development to create the jobs and the new prosperity that my hon. Friend wishes to see. We shall ask the board to be sensitive to local views. With five out of 10 of its members being local councillors, we hope that it, too, will want to follow the process through. Its members should know the local area and they should want to listen carefully to the local people.

Wherever possible, the UDC should employ local talent labour. It must seek value for its money, but I am sure that many in Plymouth will be willing and able to fulfil the roles that the UDC will need to have fulfilled as it goes about spending its money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) has been most assiduous in putting forward her constituents' views. I am sure that the House understands that her special position as one of your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, prevents her from making a direct statement in tonight's debate.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) welcomes the proposal. I can assure him that this is a first but important step. It is one of several steps as we live through the life of the UDC, which will be developing plans and taking many steps which will not only generate prosperity for its immediate area but will help in the regeneration and renewed prosperity of the adjacent areas to its own territory. This is a big step, which the House should welcome.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is a keen supporter of the measure. I agree that Plymouth has a great deal to recommend it as a place for inward investment and for self-generated creativity and business development and as a place which can do a great deal for itself given a little help from the UDC and the Government programmes that we have already identified.

I shall be working with the UDC to ensure that Plymouth's name, skills and opportunities are well known to investors from Britain and elsewhere. I am keep to see Plymouth restored to higher levels of employment and lower levels of unemployment than are currently being experienced, and I am sure that this initiative is an important step along that road.

I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Taylor) welcomed the proposal, although he mainly spoke on other subjects. Of course, a thriving dockyard is important to Plymouth and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already outlined the Government's position in principle on the two dockyards and will be announcing in due course the other part of the decision which the House is keen to know for the sake of Plymouth and our naval dockyards generally.

I trust that the House will welcome the order tonight. I urge every hon. Member to support it and, at this late hour, it would be a good idea if it went through without a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, dated 20th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.