§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 81, line 36, after 'body', insert
'or a legally constituted trust'.
§ Madam SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 135, in line 42, at end insert—
'A statutory body to which this section applies shall have the sole purpose of winding up the affairs of urban development corporations.'.No. 141, in page 82, line 27, after 'consult', insert'all members of Parliament and councillors elected to represent the area. and'.No. 134, in line 28, after 'situated', insert'and any statutory body to which transfer of property, rights or liabilities is to be made under this section.'.
§ Mr. HughesThe amendments raise two simple issues, but they are relevant for those of us who represent and live in areas covered by urban development corporations. I live in the London Docklands development corporation area. The amendments deal with residuary bodies and pre-dissolution transfers in relation to urban development corporations. The Government's current policy allows urban development corporations to be established—there is one in your part of the world, Madam Speaker, there is one in London and there is one in most urban areas these days. From the beginning, the Government's policy was that they could be wound up together; it was then amended to allow them to be wound up in parts. This is the third stage of the policy, and it allows transfers prior to wind-up.
Two concerns have been raised with me. First, if there should be a transfer before wind-up of part or all of a development corporation, it should be possible for the assets that are held by the development corporation in the public domain to be transferred to a trust. I ask the Minister to confirm whether there can be a transfer to a trust. At the moment, the law is ambiguous, and it suggests that the orders have to transfer assets to a statutory body. Trusts are not necessarily statutory bodies and there are those who have an interest in a transfer to a trust, including those in my area of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe.
Secondly, there should be consultation with all those who are elected to represent the areas in question. The local authority may be of one political hue but it may not represent the area covered by the development corporation. In my area, the development corporation covers the Surrey docks area of Bermondsey, which is entirely represented by the Liberal Democrats—there are Liberal Democrat councillors and there is a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. Consulting the local authority is fine, but there is not necessarily consultation with the local councillors or with the local Member of Parliament. The reverse has happened on the other side of the river. I hope that the Minister can give undertakings that transfers to trusts are possible and that, in the future, 135 there will be consultation with all the local councillors and with the local Members of Parliament on all urban development corporation matters.
§ Mr. VazThe Labour party's amendments—Nos. 134 and 135—seek to ensure that any new bodies established under the Act exist purely for the purpose of winding up urban development corporations and housing action trusts, and not for any other purpose. Amendment No. 134 seeks to put on the face of the Bill what the Minister said in Committee; that it would be foolhardy to impose a duty on a new body if it did not wish to have any of the powers transferred to it. Amendment No. 134 seeks to ensure that there are proper discussions and formal meetings, rather than informal discussions, to ensure that the powers are transferred.
§ Mr. Robert B. JonesI shall make three points. As to the first point about trusts, it is a case of been there, seen it, done it. Amendment No. 142 would enable the Secretary of State to transfer the residual property, rights and liabilities of an urban development corporation to a legally constituted trust as an alternative to transfer to a statutory residuary body. However, urban development corporations already have the power to transfer to any other body, by agreement, the whole or any part of their undertaking. That may include transfer to a legally constituted trust. Shortly before Central Manchester development corporation wound up in March this year, it transferred to a trust its ownership of a visitor centre in Castlefield and the responsibility for maintaining environmental improvements in that area.
Secondly, the proposal creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Having separate residuary bodies for the various development corporations and so on would cut across the need to run them economically. When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) reconsiders the matter, I hope that he will agree with me on that point.
Finally, as to consultation with Members of Parliament and councils, I do not believe for a moment that the hon. Gentleman or Liberal Democrat councillors would be backward in coming forward. I think that there is merit in consulting local authorities, but not with councillors individually on a statutory basis. People should make their views known either directly or through their Members of Parliament. I am sure that that will occur.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's final point, I restate what I said in Committee: we are not in the business of not having prior consultations and meetings, but there is no need to do so on a formal basis.
§ Mr. HughesI am grateful for the Minister's reassurance on my first point. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) can deal with the second point at a later stage. However, I am disappointed about the final point concerning consultation. The Minister should accept that formal consultation should be written into the legislation and I shall pursue the matter with him through correspondence. I hope that he will accept that that duty 136 should be imposed on corporations. In the hope that that will prove possible—and given that it is four minutes to 10 o'clock—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.