§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
§ 10.3 pm
§ Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)I have enjoyed sitting again on the Front Bench for nearly four hours but I had forgotten how uncomfortable the Benches are. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government guidance to local authorities on their responsibilities.
If asked what a local authority does, or should do, most people could reel off a list as long as their arm, and I am no exception. Even with the constraints of time, it will be a long list. If people are asked what a council does not do, the list may be even longer. With the passage of time, many councils have come a long way since they declared themselves nuclear-free zones; at least they have taken down the signs and gone some way towards conformity.
Whenever local authorities are discussed, one inevitably turns to the area that one knows best which, in my case, is Sheffield city council, on which I was privileged to serve as a councillor for more than 20 years. Many former councillors are currently active Members of the House of Commons—one of them was present during the previous debate.
Examining what Sheffield city council does is easy. The annual report of the city council contains a service charter, the introduction of which reminds everyone of the council's statutory performance indicators—providing that Sheffield people know what that means—whether the indicators are complied with and, above all, whom to contact if they are not. The Audit Commission, set up by the Government, publishes comparisons of councils' performances on a range of services that they provide. That helps when comparing one council with another, providing that citizens know where to look for the information.
Sheffield city council is now in partnership with many organisations in the city. The council now co-operates with the Government, rather than conflicts with them, which used to be the way that it operated. I invite the Minister to travel around Hallam with me when he is next on one of his frequent visits to the city. He should not be shocked or alarmed when he sees an invasion of Daleks on traffic islands. Those plastic, crenellated cones are coloured bright yellow and have a black stripe across them, bearing the legend, "Danger—high voltage". They stand motionless and inhabit the places where the traffic bollards used to be—those bollards have not been replaced.
My hon. Friend will also come across no entry street signs at the junctions of roads such as Steel road and Neill road, and Carrington road and Ecclesall road. The signs can hardly be seen as they have never been replaced, repainted or even made to stand upright. My hon. Friend will also see unswept and hazardous pavements. If he has second sight, he will see road signs that are not visible due to overhanging trees. He will see street lights that have not been repaired; yellow paint that is visible on minor roads where potholes have been marked out for some time, but not yet repaired; sporadic grass cutting; and trees that have been chopped down in a rush one weekend at places such as Willow Croft in Fulwood—months later, the site has still not been developed. 1398 Sheffield city council's annual report lists nine items in the Sheffield charter. Three of them are:
The highest quality services possible with the resources we have at our disposalServices which are responsive to your needs and viewsandPrompt remedial action if services do not come up to the standards we promise".I contend that those standards have been found wanting. Surely it is the role of any council to ensure that they are met.The Sheffield newspaper The Star has waged campaigns on unlit traffic islands that are hazardous, potholes in the roads that are dangerous and other road safety aspects. I am grateful to Neil Fieldhouse, the political editor of The Star, for his forbearance.
It is extremely difficult in a short debate not to raise areas of council work that are not within the local government responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister, but council responsibilities stem from the cash that is allocated by Government, using various formulae and indicators; each council then determines its own priorities.
Accident prevention features highly in what I deem to be a council's priorities, yet my offers to lobby the relevant Minister are dismissed by the council. I contend that street lighting should work to enable people to see and be seen, pavements should be swept, road signs should be made more visible, street lights and potholes should be repaired and street names should be visible. Road side weeds should be removed, grass verges cut on a regular basis and damaged bollards replaced. Surely the council's role is to ensure that this is done.
This is not a "Let's knock Sheffield" debate. I am proud of the city and do much to ensure that every possible crumb of the Government's financial cake goes to Sheffield. I have joined parliamentary colleagues and members of the city council in lobbying Ministers on many occasions, which has sometimes resulted in success. We have lobbied for things ranging from an inner ring road in Sheffield to a development corporation for the city.
I well remember endeavouring to get a development corporation for Sheffield and the opposition that I encountered in the city to the new, and as far as those people were concerned, alien concept. When I made representations to the late Lord Ridley, who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, he informed me that I required the support of businesses in Sheffield before the matter could be considered. That was readily forthcoming and, now, the lower Don valley has changed greatly from what was at one time a totally run down and derelict area, where confidence had vanished.
From the development corporation's inception, it began assembling sites suitable for business and the new infrastructure that would be required to improve transport access. Sites were compulsorily purchased to bring together the fragmented ownership and the development corporation used its financial resources to decontaminate land and prepare sites for sale. It was not a speedy process and the physical appearance of the valley changed little at first, but as the sites were reclaimed and the infrastructure built, the east end of Sheffield was transformed, like a phoenix rising from the ashes. 1399 A £33 million dual carriageway link road now runs through the valley, putting all parts of it within easy access of the motorway. Old, dilapidated buildings have been refurbished to a high standard by a programme that targeted prominent routes and areas. The environment has not been neglected either. The River Don and the Sheffield and Tinsley canal, which run the full length of the valley, have been improved and form the basis for a footpath-cycle network and waterside locations. They have been opened up not only for development but for public access. Through the development corporation's efforts, the derelict canal basin has emerged as a model development and leisure complex. It was once called the Canal wharf. It is near the city centre and is now better known as Victoria quays. It has led to a ripple development in the vicinity, which includes the city centre and the valley generally.
Sheffield development corporation's actions have revitalised a dilapidated area of Sheffield and had a knock-on effect in the rest of the city. The impressions that people once had when driving along the Tinsley viaduct passing Sheffield have been greatly improved.
It is obvious to anyone that housing development could, and indeed should, take place in the area. The area was considered at one time as a site for a higher education establishment—a far cry from the old image. Under the chairmanship of Hugh Sykes and chief executive Graham Kendall, the SDC has brought back into use areas that, for decades, were lost to dereliction. In addition, an airport brokered through Government assistance is under construction. We have a revitalised sector of the city where industry is thriving and Sheffield has benefited.
Up to March this year, the SDC has reclaimed 593 acres of land, built 12.7 km of road, secured 3.7 million sq ft of floor space and created nearly 12,750 jobs. It has secured £577 million of private sector investment—all from a Government grant of £93.2 million.
The questions for the Minister are: what will happen when Sheffield development corporation, which I was instrumental in helping to set up, comes to the end of its life, and how will the momentum that it created continue? In March, the Yorkshire and Humberside planning strategy for the next decade was set out in the document, "Regional Planning Guidance for Yorkshire and Humberside", which gives local authorities a broad framework for development and planning.
The document aims to encourage sustainable development in Yorkshire and Humberside, by means of four main objectives—promoting economic prosperity and competitiveness, conserving the environment, helping with urban regeneration and making the best use of available resources. It sets out the idea of economic development by creating a partnership between the public and private sectors and through the use of inward investment.
The document echoes the work of Sheffield development corporation, saying that derelict land should be revitalised and town centres maintained. The question is: should that activity be channelled through local authorities? The document gives priority to regenerating the region's inner cities and former coalfields, and to the co-ordination of planning and transport policies. It also advises that protection should be given to the countryside, and says that future generations should not suffer from today's development.
1400 The Minister will recollect a previous debate in which I drew to his attention a proposal in Sheffield city council's unitary development plan to reduce the green belt. The Minister's actions persuaded the council to do otherwise. The Government have increased the green belt, and I have nothing but praise for them for introducing the first-ever audit of environmental issues, in the document "This Common Inheritance"—an audit which is updated every year. I commend that document to everyone with an interest not only in the environment but in the well-being of the United Kingdom.
Detailed guidance is given to local authorities on planning matters, but what guidance on other matters is given, for the sake of the well-being of the community? That information does not appear to be as readily available as information on planning. Through a series of questions for written answer, I have endeavoured to bring the issue into the public domain.
Different councils allocate different priorities in the attempt to ensure that grass cutting, the collection of rents, rates and taxes, the reletting of council houses, the recycling of waste and a wide range of other activities are carried out. Yet how does a council tax payer become aware of a local authority's performance indicators, which are provided by the Audit Commission? What efforts have been made to improve councils' quality of complaints procedures, as outlined in chart 18 of the Audit Commission's publication?
Recently, I questioned in the House the setting up of the Yorkshire and Humberside assembly. Suddenly and, it appears, from nowhere, local authorities have found the money to set up that assembly. The councils seem to have found no problems in raising the cash for that purpose, which is a far cry from the story that they usually peddle.
The assembly will meddle in affairs in which councils have no statutory authority. A regional assembly will be another tier of government, like the old South Yorkshire county council, and it is to be imposed on the people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for his active support in questioning the setting up of the assembly. Truly, the question that needs to be answered is: is that assembly really needed?
I welcome inward investment, and Sheffield has a labour force second to none. It is located in a wonderful area with many facilities, including land, but when push comes to shove, Government grant helps too. I therefore ask the Minister how people can ensure that the work that councils have powers to do, and which is in accordance with their responsibilities, is done satisfactorily.
If residents cannot do that, how can they complain? The information should be readily available, and provided in a simple manner. Perhaps in this short debate the Minister will spell out in plain language Government guidance for local authorities on what their responsibilities are, and who is to oversee them.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford)We have had the privilege and pleasure of getting two bites of the cherry today, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) has talked about Sheffield in two separate debates. I had the good fortune to hear his earlier 1401 speech, although admittedly through the television network, and I found that as fascinating as I found the speech that he has just made. As the House knows, my hon. Friend has considerable experience of representing Sheffield in the House and in local government. Therefore, it is important that we should listen to the points he makes.
My hon. Friend has focused on Sheffield, and it is probably sensible if I do the same. However, I do so with some caution. Although my knowledge of Sheffield is increasing—it is based on statistics and comments from business men and industry and a number of visits—it is nowhere near that of my hon. Friend.
At long last, Sheffield city council has started to recognise that changes are needed and has taken steps to improve its performance. Debates such as tonight's will help that.
As an ethnic minority immigrant, I can say that Sheffield is renowned throughout the world. It is a great city, with a great history. The people of Sheffield are fabulous people who are proud of their city. Many people are surprised to learn that, despite the restructuring and rationalisation of the 1980s, the steel industry for which Sheffield is internationally famous now produces more steel than ever before, and is more profitable. The greatest difference—which I have discussed with my hon. Friend while standing in Sheffield—is that now one can see it. The old smokestacks are gone, and the environment has greatly improved.
Sheffield can no longer rely on a single industry for employment. The city needs to grow and diversify, but the council appears not to make that a priority. I still hear complaints that the council is anti-business. As a result, in desperation at the council's attitude and in recognition of the problems—and with considerable prompting from my hon. Friend—the development corporation was set up.
I shall not spend much time on that. The Development Corporation is extremely successful, and has revitalised the lower Don valley, which is now an attractive location for industry, distribution and office development. My hon. Friend mentioned the airport, which is an example of partnership between Sheffield development corporation, English Partnerships and the private sector. I am not sure whether the local authority was involved, or even adopted a positive attitude.
However, as my hon. Friend has said, all urban development corporations were intended to be limited-life bodies. They need to reach a conclusion, and the Sheffield development corporation will be the next one to wind up in March 1997. The remaining development corporations will wind up in March 1998.
We all recognise that suitable arrangements must be in place to ensure that the corporation's achievements are safeguarded and maintained, and that the osmosis of that success into surrounding areas continues. The local authority and other agencies such as English Partnerships have been actively involved in ensuring that the achievements of the development corporation will be maintained.
That commitment and the partnership between public and private sector—English Partnerships is an example of an interim body—will force local authorities to continue 1402 to move the city ahead and adopt a different attitude. It is happening already, although Sheffield has been one of the slowest to change.
Arrangements have also been made in the context of the Government's current policy towards urban regeneration. I refer to the single regeneration budget challenge funding, which compels authorities such as Sheffield to perform sufficiently well to gain funding. The challenge funding approach forces authorities to modernise their thinking and work in partnership with other agencies, particularly the private sector. Sheffield was typically—I say it with a deep sigh—slow to grasp that. Its bids under rounds 1 and 2 of city challenge were full of the old socialist claptrap. They were rejected, and deservedly so.
I am pleased, however, that Sheffield learned from that rejection. It took a while, but it happened. Its later single regeneration budget bids had changed out of all recognition and were successful. Sheffield received £38 million over seven years in round 1, and £36 million over seven years in round 2. The city's two main SRB challenge fund schemes are among the largest approvals in the country.
My hon. Friend will accept that that shows that Shefield city council finally recognises the importance of the matter. These schemes will lever in more than £140 million of other funding, of which nearly £90 million will come from the private sector. The importance of partnership has finally sunk in to Sheffield. If it can sink in to the minds of those councillors, there is hope everywhere. These schemes, and a further £22 million approved under the SRB estates renewal challenge funding, will make a significant contribution to the continued regeneration of this important city.
My hon. Friend portrayed a dismal litany of inadequate maintenance in Sheffield—daleks, potholes, broken street lights, dirty or hazardous pavements and the rest. I have tripped over them in the streets. However, I must add that Sheffield is by no means alone—many Labour and Liberal authorities have similar records. Funnily enough, there are even worse examples—but few. There is, however, some evidence that Sheffield is moving away from this record. I was particularly pleased to hear that the nuclear-free zone signs have been taken down—or perhaps they fell down.
These matters touch on what is, I think, the nub of what my hon. Friend has described—the lack of quality services that citizens in some areas get from their local councils, and what they can do about it. First, councils are ultimately accountable at the ballot box. If people are dissatisfied, they alone can vote out those who run their councils—particularly if all the information is provided. Local accountability rests on this. We have done a great deal in recent years to ensure that better information about performance is available.
What does the information show about Sheffield? I have touched on some of the statistics, and my hon. Friend has done so in an earlier debate. Some 7 per cent. of council tenants are more than 13 weeks in arrears with their rent. That is better than Liverpool, where the figure is 18 per cent., but much worse than the average. These arrears are then loaded on to the more honest citizens, who have to pay.
Sheffield is the second slowest metropolitan council in deciding housing planning applications. What is more, between 1993–94 and 1994–95, the percentage decided 1403 within eight weeks—our standard—fell by more than 10 per cent. In addition, one should be cautious before eating in the restaurants of Sheffield. On average, metropolitan authorities inspect 79 per cent. of those premises that are due for a look. Four councils—Bolton, Knowsley, Dudley and Solihull—achieved 100 per cent., but Sheffield managed less than 20 per cent. I cannot give a list of those that passed.
My hon. Friend knows the story of Supertram better than me, and Sheffield is finally taking action to privatise the enterprise and to stem the haemorrhage of public funds. But the bottom line for local taxpayers this year is that, with only half the hoped-for passenger usage, there will be losses of more than £6 million, with more to come. The belated sale will still leave taxpayers saddled with paying huge residual debts, on top of the major debts incurred by the world student games—which would raise a smile if it were not so disastrous for local people.
I trust that the council tax payers in Sheffield and elsewhere in South Yorkshire will make their councillors answer for that, and ensure that they will in future sit on the sidelines and allow somebody competent to take over.
I trust, but I do not believe, that the new regional assembly for Yorkshire and Humberside will prove a sensible exercise in co-operation. I hope, perhaps in vain, that it is not a politically motivated attempt to promote 1404 further waste by imposing more bureaucracy that is to be paid for by the taxpayer. We will watch it, and make sure that the voters in the area are aware of what is going on.
Like my hon. Friend, I have no intention of knocking Sheffield. The city council has shed much of its past image, and is clearly taking steps in the right direction. At the end of the day, what we will need for Sheffield and other areas is what we will get after the next election—a Conservative Government who will ensure that Labour authorities are forced to behave in a responsible manner.
Many of the changes by Sheffield and other councils have been brought about directly by Conservative policies. In the past 17 years, we have introduced a range of measures to increase local accountability, to improve local council performance and to enhance value for money. At last, they are starting to bite in Sheffield. We have constructed a framework within which local government can adopt three roles—as an enabler, regulator and, above all, community leader. I suspect, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam may agree, that we need a Conservative Government to ensure that the improvement continues. We aim to ensure that the country has an effective and locally accountable system of local government that gives value for money and the quality of public services that the people of Sheffield deserve.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.