§ Mr. CurryI beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 19, line 33, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall once in every financial year lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement listing the property, rights and liabilities of the Urban Regeneration Agency which have not been subject of any directions under subsection (1).'.The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the Minister to be bolder than he wants to be. As you will know from the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the functions of English Partnerships, the urban regeneration agency, will be merged into the regional development agencies, with two exceptions. One function is the management of the coalfield community and the other is the management of the Greenwich peninsula.
Those are two very different functions. The coalfield community is widely scattered over many counties, and between the areas of several proposed regional development agencies. Some 56 sites are involved, so I doubt whether anyone would quibble with the idea that, if an existing organisation is capable of dealing with such a disparate piece of real estate, it should continue to do the job.
1358 The Greenwich peninsula is wholly different. It is a small site, which falls exclusively within the territory of the proposed London regional development agency. I cannot for the life of me understand why, if the Government are investing such hopes in the regional development agencies—if they are so confident that they represent a new solution—they do not have enough confidence and hope to entrust the Greenwich peninsula to the London regional development agency.
I know that, after the dome has been completed, the site might revert to English Partnerships. I know that the Government would like to find an on-going purpose for the development of the Greenwich peninsula, but this debate is not about the dome. I do not understand why, in the case of London, the Government do not have the courage of their convictions and beliefs. We understand that London is about to have a mayor and its own council. The Government should say why the regional development agency is not deemed to be competent enough, or why they do not have enough confidence in it, to manage a site as relatively small as the Greenwich peninsula.
Suppose the argument is that it is a national site. Will not the regional development agencies be sufficiently robust to manage something that will, we hope, attract visitors internationally as well as from throughout the country? I should like the Minister to explain why his vision appears to falter when it comes to one of those key sites, in which a great deal of money has been invested, but which seems to me coherent enough to lend itself precisely to the tasks that he proposes.
When will the London regional development agency come into existence? The world and his wife—except anyone in the House of whom I am aware—appears to know that there will be a shadow regional development agency; that it will not commence at the same time as the other RDAs because it will await the eventual election, if it takes place, of a London mayor and the associated council. I hope that the Minister will fill us in on that, but I am especially interested to know why, as someone who has a great deal of commitment to the concept of RDAs, his commitment stops short at that piece of east London.
§ Mr. CabornFirst, I shall answer the question about London. It is absolutely correct that we have decided that the development agency for London will be a voluntary body until the elected authority comes into existence. Had we not done so, a non-departmental public body would have been set up for one year only, and powers would then have been transferred to the London authority, which would then have come under the control of the elected authority and the mayor.
On the subject of the Greenwich peninsula, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question. The millennium experience is being prepared for the year 2000. We want to make sure that that project, which will be highly successful, will be delivered on time. The London authority will not be up and running until 2000, assuming that the population of London says yes in the referendum.
In answer to a written question relating to the future of the peninsula, the Minister without Portfolio stated:
Commercial interest in acquiring the Dome is, however, likely to be maximised in 2000, when it can be seen successfully in operation, and when commercial and popular awareness of the site is at its height. The Government will therefore decide on the Dome's long-term future at that time."—[Official Report. 1 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 3]1359 The Government are clear that the dome will remain in the ownership of the company that owns it at present, with the full support of English Partnerships at national level. We hope that the venture will be successful, and we will determine its future after 2000. By that time we hope that a London authority with a mayor will be in place, and that is when a decision will be made.
§ Mr. CurryWe all hope that the dome is a successful venture, as it is in our national interest that that should be the case. I find the Minister's remarks disappointing. They demonstrate a lack of commitment to the concept of development agencies, but at this hour of the night I do not intend to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.