HC Deb 18 May 1994 vol 243 cc802-4
10. Mr. Mudie

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss inner cities.

Mr. Gummer

I met Jeremy Beacham on Monday 9 May.

Mr. Mudie

The Minister will be aware that local authorities fear and believe that the single regeneration budget is a device for disguising spending cuts. Why did the urban programme—the main policy and vehicle for combating deprivation in inner cities—spend £236 million two years ago, whereas this year it is spending £85 million, which is a cut of £151 million? Does that not confirm that the fears of local authorities are correct?

Mr. Gummer

No, it confirms that the urban programme has been superseded by a number of other programmes that we are using to deal with the problems of our inner cities. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the past we used to go to the United States and other countries to see how they did things and to learn from them, but now they come to see what we are doing. For example, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited President Clinton, Mayor Murphy of Pittsburgh drew attention to the success and model provided by our urban policy. It is now the United States experts who come to the United Kingdom to learn, rather than the other way round, and the Germans and Australians are following suit.

Mr. Devlin

Is it not encouraging how Labour-controlled authorities such as Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough have taken a leaf from the partnership ethic expounded by the Teesside development corporation and other development corporations and have put forward successful city challenge bids, enabling them to use budgets provided by the Government and the private sector to rebuild inner city areas?

Mr. Gummer

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The establishment of the integrated regional offices and the single regeneration budget has been widely welcomed even by people who are politically opposed to us, because they see that we can approach the problems of the inner city in an integrated and holistic way instead of in a partial manner. I therefore hope that the Opposition will continue their support, as they do in the countryside.

Mr. Vaz

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, far from solving the enormous problems faced by urban areas, the single regeneration budget will make life much more difficult for the people who run our major towns and cities? Will he assure us that the shortfall in urban aid which the introduction of the single regeneration budget has created will be made up in full by the Government as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Gummer

I do not want to transgress the delicate feeling in the House at the moment, but when we announced the single regeneration budget the hon. Gentleman said that it was a cover for a cut and that there would be less than £1.4 billion in 1994–95. In fact, we announced £1.4 billion—precisely the figure that we had given—so the hon. Gentleman has asked a question about something that does not exist. We are putting very significant amounts of money into the inner cities. This is working extremely well and is very widely welcomed. What is more, it is over and above the substantial main programme of investment. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate his fire on reality and stop trying to pretend that things are going wrong in areas where we are doing extremely well.

Mr. Anthony Coombs

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to revive inner cities is to give the people who live in them a direct investment in the making of decisions that affect their lives? Does he agree that housing action trusts, local management of schools and grant-maintained schools do precisely that? Is it not somewhat hypocritical for the Labour party to argue for greater local decision-making while opposing each and every such measure?

Mr. Gummer

I am very much in favour of the subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend refers. Speaking to an audience that included a very large number of Labour councillors, I noticed that when I said that I wanted more subsidiarity from national to local government they cheered, but when I said that I thought that there ought to be more subsidiarity from local government to schools and other organisations they booed. For them, subsidiarity seems to stop at a particular level; I believe in reaching down to the smallest possible unit in running the government of the country.