HL Deb 31 March 1982 vol 428 cc1405-22

4.7 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate on a matter of serious concern not only for people involved in urban areas but for the country as a whole. I think it would be agreed that, if our great cities are in decline, that affects the whole of our society. I am particularly grateful to her for the fact that she did not limit the subject of the debate to inner areas alone, but included middle and outer areas. The problems of inner areas, as I think we all recognise, are very serious, but because of the special aid which is given to them under the Inner Urban Areas Act and other legislation, they are now no more serious, and very often are becoming less serious, than the problems arising in the outer areas where local authorities principally built in the '50s, '60s, and '70s huge dehumanised high-rise satellite towns, such as Kirkby outside Liverpool, or, in the area where I live, the Noctorum, Woodchurch and Ford estates in the Wirral.

The problems of the people living in those outer urban areas affect the middle urban areas in ways which the noble Baroness is perhaps not strictly thinking about. In smaller cities, people are decanted, very often without full recreational and other facilities, so that they spend much of their time tramping back through the middle urban areas to the inner urban areas, where their families still are, where their recreational facilities are and where the local pub is. Some of the less responsible, or more dissatisfied, of these people, on their trips to and from the inner urban area, do a lot of damage to the middle area, largely from frustration, possibly from various kinds of bitterness and a feeling that the circumstances in which they live compare unfavourably with those in the suburbs, but nevertheless doing damage, causing difficulties and contributing towards the increasing crime rate in this country.

My experience is that the crime rate in the outer urban estates is very often much higher—and, indeed, it is the highest in some parts of Merseyside—than in any other part of the urban conurbation. I have frequently argued in your Lordships' House that the Government's inner urban policies, while recognising the serious problems there, have given too little recognition to the problems of the outer areas.

I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to report on the progress of the Government's special initiative to find, and I quote his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in her statement of 9th October last: new ways of tackling the economic, environmental and social problems of inner cities". It may not surprise your Lordships that I shall speak principally of Merseyside. So far as Merseyside is concerned, what that statement meant was the establishment of a Merseyside task force working to the noble Lord the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and a London based financial institutions group.

This initiative was very much welcomed at that time in Merseyside. Much hope and expectation were placed upon its efforts to do something about the Merseyside problems and those of Liverpool in particular. Your Lordships may recall that the task force was given 12 months to carry through its gigantic mission. Half that time has now passed. I am told that the Merseyside County Council and the other local authorities in the area have made a number of approaches to the task force, including project proposals and major policy reviews of the economy and housing, and that the county council have suggested there should be joint working arrangements with the task force.

Although a number of meetings have taken place, I am told that the response by the task force to the county council's project proposals has been poor, that there has been no response to the policy review documents and that no attempt to develop joint working arrangements has taken place. It may be a deliberate policy on the part of the task force not to work too closely with the local authorities, though I hope this is not the case, because the right honourable lady the Prime Minister referred in the same statement to the role of the Secretary of State as: bringing together and concentrating the activities of central. Government departments, and to work with local government and with the private sector". So far as the local authorities in the Merseyside area are concerned, this does not appear to have happened. In his covering letter to the then leader of the county council, the Secretary of State for the Environment said: The task force will of course be concerned with policy issues and major problems, including the allocation of resources, rather than with detailed case work". I am advised this week that, so far as the local authorities in the task force area are concerned, they have not seen any concrete evidence of a concentration of central Government activities. The feeling on Merseyside appears to be that the task force is not working with local people and that most of the effort is concentrated on projects, not on policy issues. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me about this. Since the task force is not accountable locally, no progress reports have been published at local level, which again underlines some of the criticisms which have been voiced at various times in your Lordships' House about the lack of consultation and of working with local government which has occurred under the present Government's régime.

So far as resources are concerned, when there is a Conservative Government in power, the shire counties tend, broadly speaking, to be favoured in the allocation of resources. Since the introduction of the block grant system two years ago and the development of special initiatives which by-pass main allocation systems such as the urban development corporations and the urban programmes, and with central Government's own direct spending, it is getting very much more difficult for people involved at the local level to be sure what the public spending impact on the old cities now is. If the resource allocation mechanisms continue to rely heavily on population figures as an indicator, your Lordships will probably agree that it is inevitable that the older, inner urban areas with the declining populations, to which the noble Baroness referred, will be inadequately recognised, despite the well accepted fact that they face economic and social problems of a horrendous and growing scale of complexity.

Despite the new block grant system's complexity, which again has often been discussed in your Lordships' House, it is in my opinion still too crude a yardstick in some respects for measuring the relative spending needs of local authorities with different problems and in different parts of the country. As I argued earlier, many of the most serious problems are in outer urban satellite areas such as Kirkby, yet the local authority, Knowsley District Council, which covers this area is, surprisingly enough, the only Merseyside district which is neither a partnership nor a programme authority. Therefore it does not gain the benefit of the assistance which is given to other authorities in the same county. Although they have very serious problems, they do not have a problem of the size which Kirkby presents.

Nevertheless—this is an optimistic point in what I suppose may be seen as a somewhat pessimistic speech—a Kirkby study has been undertaken jointly by the county council, the Knowsley District Council and the European Community to examine the problems and, it is hoped, to come up with action proposals in the context of similar problems elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Europe. I hope that the kind of study and the kind of action which is being undertaken in Kirkby will be followed in many other areas similar to Kirkby which need to be regenerated. Despite being comparatively new, these areas are in great need of regeneration and, to an even greater extent than in the case of the inner urban areas, very often have social and economic problems of a very serious nature.

As has already been mentioned, jobs, housing and recreational and community facilities will probably remain the principal problem in regenerating the urban areas of the old cities. I would suggest that the initiatives taken by Liverpool City Council and other councils in bringing back owner occupation to inner city areas are one extremely important, comparatively cheap and immediately effective way of regenerating the inner urban areas. I would also underline the very considerable work, which the noble Baroness herself mentioned, that housing associations are doing in providing rehabilitated and new-built houses to let. As the noble Baroness said, it is sad that the private sector continues to decline. One would hope to see this decline reversed.

Many of us are concerned that up to now the initiative of the shorthold tenancy does not appear to have met with much success. I believe that there is a role for the private sector, but I would underline that building for owner occupation in the inner areas—I am glad that Mr. Kaufman, the spokesman for the Opposition in the House of Commons, has accepted this—and the housing associations' policy of building to let must he the main means of regenerating these areas.

The problems remain enormous, and it is apposite that the noble Baroness should have brought them to our attention. She will probably agree that it is not just the old cities which have these enormous problems. The many smaller towns where populations have declined—places hardly larger than villages like Blaenau Ffestiniog, where quarrying has almost disappeared—have the same kind of problems, though on a smaller sacle.

I gather that this year we built fewer houses than at any time since the First World War. Rehabilitation, job creation and infrastructure work seem to me to be very important. We have all been regaled by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, about the effect of failing to do infrastructure work on the Roman Empire. I do not think we here are in quite so serious a position, although it is important to take the opportunity of doing important work on the infrastructure which will not only reclaim the infrastructure but will also create jobs—which in itself is probably the most important means, with housing, of regenerating inner urban areas.

4.20 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for initiating this debate at this time. In part—and only in part—I am sure that the planning not only of our inner cities but also of new estates outside the inner cities has, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said, produced problems of law and order, unhappiness and lack of satisfaction to those who live there.

Before the war I lived for five years in one of the worst slums in Birmingham, where the terraced houses were back-to-back and where the people very rarely ventured out of their neighbourhoods. The other day, I had the opportunity of meeting some of the people who lived in that area 40 years ago. They looked back upon those days with some nostalgia. We tried to analyse that nostalgia and found that it was due to several things. In those back-to-back, dreary streets there was a neighbourly feeling. For one thing, there were no cars in the roads and so children could play in the streets knowing it was safe and watched by their parents. The children had a playground, albeit not a very satisfactory playground. The women, when their work was done, sat on the doorsteps, talked, and discussed with one another their difficulties, lives and enjoyment. The old men sat outside on those kinds of wooden chairs which were brought out from inside the house. The old men smoked their pipes and talked. There was a sense of neighbourliness and support for one another.

Then came the war. At that stage, I was involved in taking children from London and escorting them to the country. It was a tremendous eye-opener for me, to learn what was in the minds of those children. They were fearful and frightened of the great wide spaces. They were terrified of the sea. They were frightened of the stillness. One child said to me, "Isn't the noise of stillness dreadful?" They did not know what went on in the country. One child with great big eyes said, "I don't understand it. I've just seen a horse with handlebars". I looked up and saw that it was a cow. They had never seen a cow before. Despite the fact that these children had been happy in their neighbourhoods, they were now learning what the countryside was like.

Years later these children returned to their cities. They had high hopes of returning to the inner city areas, but what did they find? They found that it was no longer possible to play in the streets, even if they wanted to do so. No longer were the women able to talk to one another, because of the cars and the traffic and the building of high-rise flats. At that stage, a number of us, having seen children of the inner cities before the war, and having seen children return from the country to the inner cities, realised that one of the things greatly needed was not only good housing but also open space. Several of us made representations to the then LCC. We pointed out that, with the bombing there had been in the East End, here was a great opportunity to set up a park in the East End; why should the West End have Hyde Park and St. James's Park and the East End have none? We thought that this was a magnificent suggestion. It would have drawn together the best of pre-war London and the experiences which the children had had in the country. What were we told? We were told that this could not he done because it was financially impossible. We were told that the land would be needed for housing and that the then LCC would not be able to afford such a scheme because it needed the rates. I went to the East End and, although there was the space, at any rate for a smaller park, this is what we were told. We then made representations to the LCC, asking, if a park could not be made available, could they not dot little squares all over the East End, Islington and the Docklands so that people would have some places to meet? That request was also refused.

How I wish that central and local government could bridge the gap of departmental barriers. How one wishes that planners, architects, civil servants, local government officers and council members could have insight into the emotional needs of people which, if met, would go some way to saving our country money in the very long run and would give happiness to our people.

Many of us are very fond of Post Impressionist paintings and perhaps the most delightful of these shows the Luxembourg Gardens; the old men sitting and talking to one another, the old women pushing prams, the children playing. Such activities do not demand any staff, for they are natural activities in any area. So what now? Even today, when driving through all parts of London, one can still see shored-up buildings which have been bought by the local authority in order to develop them. Has not the time come for us all in central and local government and in the communities to recognise the need that people have for open spaces? Is now not the time to give over what little land is left to open spaces?

4.28 p.m.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, like the rest of your Lordships, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and to the "luck of the draw", for having this interesting debate introduced today. The matter is one deserving of very careful thought, and it is thought which must be careful and farsighted. In saying this, I am not going to follow what was said by my noble friend Lady Faithfull except that one of my daughters, who was a teacher, said to me some years ago, "Daddy, if ever you get the chance you must beg for spaces where the children can play". This is very important to the environment of a community, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, have both said.

I have studied the Statement repeated by my noble friend Lord Bellwin on 9th December on the subject of inner cities. Although, in reply to a question of mine, he agreed that it did not apply to Scotland, he added that the Secretary of State for Scotland was "fully in the picture". Although I shall confine my remarks to my native city of Edinburgh, my remarks will be on matters which concern any city, no matter where it may be, in relation to two particular problems. The problem, as the noble Baroness has said, is a general one.

I turn to the need for by-pass roads, which have received a fillip from recent publications of the intentions of government. They are divided into two sorts: one the by-pass road designed to speed trunk traffic, the other the by-pass road to deal with the concern of this debate, namely, the relief of central inner areas of cities. This brings me to the first point which I believe to be of universal appeal. In a situation which includes the ultimate establishment of a by-pass—it is not every city that has this problem, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, would agree—let the by-pass be constructed as a contribution to the final phase, as early as possible. The need for by-pass roads is now generally accepted, and I see them as of the two types I have described.

The existence of a by-pass will inevitably alter the traffic pattern of the whole area, especially that of the inner and middle areas of old cities. By-pass problems must be an important contribution to the internal planning; otherwise such internal planning must be based on conjecture. Unless you know what the traffic is going to be like in the centre, plans for roads, buildings and everything else in the centre must be subject to conjecture, and one result of such conjecture can be that, as in the case of Edinburgh, whole areas may, in efforts to relieve traffic pressures for internal road construction, be subjected to "planning blight" which may turn out finally, when the by-pass comes, to be more massive than is ultimately necessary. As for the human issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, they are extremely important and are likely to suffer from excessive road building in inner cities which turns out to be unnecessary in the end.

Nobody has mentioned tower blocks. I had expected my noble friend Lady Faithfull to say something about them. I like the story of the mother in Edinburgh who said she did not like her tower block because, "When I throw a piece out to the wains the seagulls get it before the wains". It is all very well having places for children to play, but from a tower block they cannot be overseen by their parents. Lessons must be learned from what has happened. In whole areas integrated communities in the cities all over the country are being divided; these areas may be broken up and the living environment of the inhabitants impaired or destroyed when existing buildings are needlessly demolished to give place to tower blocks, or these concrete highways which sweep through towns level with the windows. That is my first point—that, if you are eventually going to have a by-pass road, build it first, not last.

My second point has nothing to do with roads but arises from an idea being put forward just now by the Cockburn Association in Edinburgh, whose work in contributing to the conservation of the ancient city over the years is well known. In this connection—I bethought myself of it when the noble Lord, Lord Evans, was speaking—Edinburgh has been irreverently called "the Holy City", because of the ghastly holes in many places where buildings have been destroyed and removed and the sites left gaping, as it were, to the high heaven. Many of them are in the inner centre of the cities; there they are, and Edinburgh is not alone in this respect. The time must come, and the sooner the better, when the development of these vacant sites is taken in hand. Surely, with the success of this Government's policy and resolve, the time has come when construction can begin to be undertaken to revive and reinvigorate the building industry. I say this because one of the major difficulties facing developers in inner cities today is the high cost of land and the high cost of finance. As for the land in local authorities' hands, it is lying idle and unproductive in every way, not only in terms of lost revenue, but also in lost rates. As for finance, in order to encourage filling up the holes with needed buildings the Cockburn Association's suggestion is, I gather, that vacant sites now lying idle might be transferred free of charge to developers who contract to construct thereon, by agreement with the local authority, buildings which the authority will want on completion, to purchase on agreed terms, to be occupied by them or leased by them or sold by them.

In saying that, I turn again to what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said. That is one way of making owner occupation more possible in the city centres: if buildings could be constructed in that way and made available for the local authority to sell, it would contribute to what the noble Lord looked forward to. I gather it will not be long before this proposition or something like it is made to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. It will be very interesting to hear what my noble friend Lord Bellwin may say on this proposal, which has not been touched on before. I hope that this is a worthwhile contribution to the noble Baroness's debate, and I look forward to my noble friend's reply, turning, as I do again, to his Statement of 9th December.

4.39 p.m.

Lord Vaux of Harrowden

My Lords, like other speakers before me, I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for initiating this very interesting and very important debate. Any debate concerned with the regeneration of our cities will almost certainly concentrate on housing, employment and the needs of industry. Although these matters, and the regeneration of wealth, are all essential, we must not lose sight of what is arguably the nation's greatest wealth. That is its children.

There is no doubt that the urbanisation of our society can hit children very hard indeed. Many are born into overcrowded, high density housing, surrounded by increasingly murderous roads. More and more natural play space has been eroded away to be replaced by a hostile, sterile environment of brick and concrete. It has been estimated that in this country an area the size of the Isle of Wight disappears under concrete nearly every year. All these factors stifle the natural instincts and energies of children, many of whom also experience the social and educational problems that tend to have a higher incidence in the city areas.

One of the main requirements is play space and one of the main problems is that land is all too often considered to be too valuable to be spared for the needs of children. We render children's lives quite intolerable if we seek to confine their play to their homes and their usually very tiny gardens. I know that it has been quoted in this House before, but I think that what Lloyd George said in 1925 in a message to the National Playing Fields Association bears repetition. He said: The right to play is a child's first claim on the community. No community can infringe that right without doing deep and enduring harm to the minds and bodies of its citizens". Play is an instinctive need for children as well as a human right recognised by the United Nations in their declaration of the rights of children. Play space is a "must" for children and for this to be used to the best advantage there must be adult involvement in the form of play leaders. Play leaders must make it their aim to see that children do not become bored, because it is when children become bored that we can expect perverted play in the form of vandalism, shoplifting and juvenile crime, of which we have heard a tremendous amount in recent debates in your Lordships' House.

Society cannot afford to deprive children of play opportunities and leadership in their play, any more than it can afford to deprive them of education. Central and local government spend many millions of pounds educating children for 260 days of the year, but very little is spent on them when they leave school, after school hours and during their holidays. Government recognise that adult play and leisure is of great importance—so much so that they fund the Sports Council to the tune of £21 million, which is a good thing, and the Arts Council to the tune of £80 million. But children's play and leisure is funded to the tune of just a mere few hundred thousand pounds. Government, up to now, have failed lamentably in their responsibility towards children for their play and leisure. It is now time for political acceptance of the importance of play to children as an essential part of their healthy development.

I would urge all those charged with the regeneration of our cities not to overlook the very special human needs that must go hand in hand with economic regeneration. Among those human needs, may significant priority please be given to the very legitimate and important needs of children? Let us bear in mind that today's children are tomorrow's adults. The shape of tomorrow's society depends largely on children and particularly on how they develop into adult life. In this, their play and recreational opportunities have an essential role. Our urban life must necessarily both accommodate and sustain it. I know that funds are limited and that they are needed for countless other commitments. But money spent now on children and their needs for play, will pay tremendous dividends in future years.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I, too, would like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on selecting so interesting a subject for what is, I think, the first debate that she has initiated in this House. It is, of course, a broad subject and there can be few Government policies which do not, in some measure, affect our urban areas. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not respond to all of the points mentioned, some of which, indeed, fall slightly outside my own province.

It is, indeed, in the inner cities that the greatest concentrations of deprivation are to be found: the familiar combination of high unemployment, poor housing, too few job opportunities, inadequate facilities, and socially disadvantaged people left behind as industry and the more enterprising and better-educated have moved to the suburbs or even further afield. It is in those areas that the problems of society, to which the noble Baroness referred, are at their greatest. The communities that remain lack the balance that is necessary if they are to thrive. The problems faced by the people living there reinforce and feed upon each other, creating a vicious spiral of decline.

Of course, these problems are the result of decades of decline. They have not come about overnight and—as much as some of us would like to think that they can—the reality is that they cannot be solved overnight. This Government have maintained their commitment to the inner cities and, as I will show, have taken a wide range of initiatives which demonstrate that commitment. Indeed, I would claim without any hesitation that no Government have ever before shown such imagination in the width of the range of activities on which they are currently embarked in trying to deal with the problem. For myself, I am particularly pleased to be able to make the Government contribution to this debate because, within the Department of the Environment, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to take a special interest in urban policy.

The Government's aim is to make the inner cities once more places where people want to live and work. But it is no use pretending that it is an easy task. The problems can only be tackled by a co-ordinated approach with the twin aims of getting the best possible value for the huge sums of money already being spent in the inner cities, and by providing additional Government help.

The Government are giving that help in numerous ways. The time available today means that I can give details of only some of them. But the main help is through the special emphasis which we give to inner cities within main programmes, such as dealing with derelict land, and through the urban programme. For 1982–83, despite the general need to control public expenditure, we have been able to increase the total resources available under the urban programme to £270 million—the highest ever in real terms. The great bulk of this will be spent by the partnership and programme authorities; I myself chair four of the six partnership committees and I am responsible for approving the inner area programmes prepared by the 15 programme authorities. In addition, £64 million is being made available to the two urban development corporations which we set up in 1981 to regenerate London and Merseyside docklands. Their expenditure on projects is expected to rise from £15 million in 1981–82 to £50 million in 1982–83.

But we are not in the business of handing out subsidies for marginal projects with little long-term benefit. Making effective use of these resources is at least as important as the volume of resources available. Valuable work is being carried out under the urban programme in many fields. Our priority is, and must be, to secure lasting regeneration by stimulating local inner city economies. For it is only by so doing that the people who live in the inner areas will be able to help themselves—by finding proper jobs and restoring their sense of pride in themselves and their areas. Now more than 50 per cent. of partnership funds go on projects aimed either directly or indirectly at economic regeneration. But all this effort would be fruitless if the private sector were not involved. Public sector activity is not enough. In isolation it does not create real wealth. That is the task of private enterprise, and it is the private sector—not the public sector—on which the inner cities must rely for their future prosperity.

We firmly believe that a new approach to the problems of our older urban areas must involve closer association between local government and the private sector. So local authorities must now first consult in detail with private sector interests before submitting their inner area programmes for our approval. It is essential that they draw in private sector ideas for the inner cities at an early stage, taking full advantage of local knowledge and experience and, above all, ensure that schemes have local support.

I can tell your Lordships that this co-operation is now most encouraging. I see it happening everywhere and, for the first time, I see a working together between public and private sectors that we have never seen in the past. I do not want to digress, but perhaps I may recall being in a town hall with the local authority membership, when the local chamber of commerce and chamber of trade came in and said: This is the first time for 20 years that we have been here as a body". I thought that that was very encouraging. I should like to be able to say that the meeting that followed was very productive, but frankly it was not. However, it set the base and today, perhaps a year later, there is cooperation between the two sectors; and so it must be.

This same effort to encourage private sector involvement and investment underlines the designation of enterprise zones. Recently I seem to have been asked many questions in this House about enterprise zones, and it is right that I should be asked them. However, I have stressed all along that this is an experiment. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, spoke about blight, and she referred to certain reservations that she has. It is not unreasonable to have reservations because these are still early days. But, as I have said before, I shall say this about it: At least it is an attempt to do something imaginative and to try to see what can be done with areas which, for so long, have simply lain derelict, doing nothing. All we have done in the past is to bemoan the situation and say: "Someone ought to do something about it". Well, someone is trying to do something about it. I am trying to be careful not to go further than I did in answering a Question earlier today, when reporting what is being achieved. Therefore, I shall only say that we are very encouraged by what we see and hope that before too long we shall h able to give more details of why we are encouraged.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps I could ask him a question. As regards enterprise zones, one of the matters with which people are concerned is that of the levy, which in an enterprise zone they cannot pay to the industrial training boards, and are not allowed to. But at the same time they do not receive a grant if they want to send someone for industrial training. This has caused a great deal of disquiet among local authorities, industries and other people. I wonder whether the Government will see this is straightened out. It has been raised before.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I cannot give an immediate answer to the noble Baroness on that point because it is one of the many points at which we are looking. We have appointed people to monitor what is happening and to give an independent view. In addition, we are in touch with the local people who are trying to develop. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, what the noble Baroness says is part of the whole situation which we shall watch carefully. If there is some way in which we can do something better, we shall not hesitate to do so, because this is another genuine attempt to do something about these areas. As I said in answering the Question, if we are right, and if it is successful, there will be more such areas.

I want to say a few words about enterprise agencies. In answering this debate, apart from picking up the individual points that have been made by your Lordships at the end, it is right that I should give some indication of the various initiatives which are being taken. So it is not just pious words, hopes and generalities; attempts are being made. Therefore, I refer now to the enterprise agencies. For those who do not know it, in the main, these are bodies of the private sector, which come together in various towns with, I think it is fair to say in every case, the blessing of the local authorities and, in some cases, their help. Basically, it is an attempt by people in the private sector—business people, banks, building societies, professional people and even the local press—to get together to form little agencies which will help people who are trying to start in business, who want to be in business, and even those who are already in business and are having difficulties.

There are also many success stories to be told concerning this. At the moment there are some 60 such agencies actually operating. As a result, thousands of new people have started out in business with consequent employment. I do not want to overestimate or overstate the case at all, but there are at least another 50 such agencies which are currently being talked about. If we can spread this enthusiasm throughout the whole country, it would be another major initiative for actually doing something rather than just bemoaning one's fate.

Finally, on that point, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that tax relief will be given on firms' contributions to approved enterprise agencies. I hope that that will be an additional incentive to companies to become involved—perhaps some which may have so far stood back from participation.

Another initiative to involve private sector expertise in our efforts to secure economic regeneration in the inner cities is the secondment of some 40 managers to work with Government for a year. I think that the readiness of companies to come forward in this way must be an encouragement to everyone. Many of your Lordships will also know of what, in the department, we call the Financial Institutions Group, which has seconded to it some 26 managers drawn from banks, building societies, insurance companies and pension funds establishments; they are examining a whole range of questions which they have identified in the older urban areas. They are doing this on their own; they are not being guided or told. We want to see what outside, fresh thinking can bring to the problems and, again, some really exciting ideas are coming forward. We shall see how we can develop them.

Perhaps I may mention the Merseyside task force to which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, referred. He expressed some concern about what it is actually achieving. I thought that what he said was quite contrary to the impression which I had gained from a recent visit to Liverpool, when I spoke to the Liberal leadership of the authority. I thought that they were very keen on what was going on.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, perhaps I could interrupt the Minister for a moment. The concern that has been expressed has been expressed by the county council, which is controlled by a different party—one further down this Bench from me.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I was about to say that. As regards my right honourable friend's involvement, when he starts to talk to me about things being not "fair" in Liverpool, I know that he is really getting the message there, because he is speaking with the Liverpool accent. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, is not here; I am sure that he would come to my aid on that. But he would say that it is not "fair" at all.

The task force is, indeed, concentrating on projects rather than grand strategies, because of the vital need to get matters moving right now and not to wait. If they ought to be more involved in strategies, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, implied, then that and the rest of his remarks that he has made today, will be passed on to my right honourable friend, who I know will be very interested to read them. But, again, it is another attempt to tackle a most serious problem; arguably, in terms of scale, I should have thought the most serious of all the inner urban area problems in the whole of the country. That would be my assessment.

I have stressed the priority we are giving to economic regeneration, but that does not mean that we are not conscious of the need to improve services for people who are already living in the inner cities. Local authorities already spend vast amounts of tax and ratepayers' money on education and social services. This means that the main scope for improvement must obviously be through more effective use of those resources. But a sizeable part of urban programme resources are used for social projects, particularly those which do not fit easily into existing programmes—for example, because they are innovative and involve a voluntary sector, or are aimed at the special needs of particular groups such as the ethnic minorities.

I am particularly pleased to be able to say that through that programme we support about 350 projects designed specifically to benefit ethnic minorities, in addition to the multitude which benefit all inner city residents. It must be remembered that over half the ethnic minority population live in designated inner city authority areas. So in considering area programmes we are always conscious of the special ethnic dimension.

My noble friend Lady Gardner referred particularly to the need for better sport and recreation facilities in urban areas. She is absolutely right. I think at this time perhaps more than ever before there is a need to recognise this. We are doing so. Last year some £22 million was spent on recreational projects under the urban programme, and that is quite apart from whatever the Sports Council and other bodies may do. For the partnerships the figure was £13 million, which in fact represented 12 per cent. of their total spending.

As in other aspects of the urban programme we believe it is vitally necessary for local authorities to involve the local community and the private sector in recreational projects as well. One of the initiatives my right honourable friend was able to take during his first visit to Liverpool last summer was his announcement that he would match pound for pound, up to a total of £2 million, money that private sporting interests could raise for local sporting and leisure facilities on Merseyside. I understand that the response has been magnificent. As with other initiatives which we are currently taking on Merseyside, we shall want to consider the lesson that this teaches for tackling similar problems in other conurbations.

I want to mention here a point that my noble friend Lady Gardner mentioned when she referred to the problem of what happens when companies move out of the area because of the rate burden. I am anxious not to stress the political side of this whole debate. I recognise it is there and that it cannot go away, but we should concentrate today as far as we can on looking at what really happens. There surely now can be few who would say other than that where rates are high it means that people, businesses, stores, the kind of companies my noble friend mentioned, just have to move out. They cannot stay.

I was in a meeting with one local authority who asked me to try to bring in the private sector—and this was another one who had not been in the town hall for many years. I sat down with them to try to see how they would work together and to help. It was so difficult when a number of them said, "Why do you expect us to come here and help? We are moving out. Why should we pay so much more here?" and I shall not state the figures they mentioned—"when down the road in an adjoining authority we pay much less?", and the figures were staggeringly less. "Why should we remain here?" they said, to which there truly is no answer. Why should they? These were like authorities. One could not say, "Well, one is a shire county and one is an inner city"; they were like authorities. I was frankly embarrassed for the authority I was trying to help.

If we get over to authorities—and, frankly, I think we can; with the odd exceptions of some who are so steeped in dogma that they just do not want to know, the message is getting over—that high spending means high rates, and that means that people cannot afford to continue to stay in their authority area and must look elsewhere, I am hoping that that too will be a situation which will improve.

I am not going to rise to the bait that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, put out about discussion of the figures of grants to the partnership authorities. We are having a healthy correspondence. I am sure your Lordships would like to know that. It goes on pretty much all the year round. At the moment it is dealing with this issue. I could quote figures which I think would show the noble Baroness that her suppositions are not correct, but then We will leave that for another day because time is getting on.

I would say on finance that we are trying to stress the point that there will be room, indeed there is room, for greater capital spending in the inner cities if there is less emphasis, if there is a reduction, on current spending. It has been the almost obsession with current spending in the past which has led to this on-going, continuing commitment of money year after year which has been at the expense of massive cutbacks of capital spending; 65 per cent. has been the cutback in capital spending over the last seven years—I am saying this off the top of my head. This is an enormous cutback, and has reflected itself in work for the construction industry, and so on.

That is why we emphasise wherever we can the need for more spending where money is there—and it is there. As I mentioned in answering another recent question, local authorities now have some hundreds of millions of pounds of capital receipts which they can spend as they wish. I am hoping that some of that, indeed a lot of it, will go in spending on capital projects for the inner cities. Not all capital spending necessarily has to result in future revenue outgoings as well. If you repair your housing stock, if you rehabilitate it, that has no on-going commitment for revenue purposes. I hope that is something else that will be received.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, mentioned his concern that we should also look to areas outside the immediate inner city. He is quite right. in some cases you get housing estates with problems of dereliction and deprivation every bit as bad as anything you will find in the immediate inner city area. The only difference is that it is not as concentrated. The scale is not quite the same. One is always between the Scylla on the one hand of wanting to concentrate the help so everyone can see that things are happening, and the Charybdis on the other hand of sprinkling it too widely and doing a little to help but in practical terms achieving not too much. In looking at programmes I try to be flexible about this, and I shall go on being flexible, and we shall try to help wherever we can.

May I touch on some of the points raised in the debate. I am so glad that my noble friend Lady Gardner spoke about homesteading. She is right. It is an opportunity. I should like to see much more. The former GLC administration put some 1,300 houses out to be done in this way, and that was good. Unfortunately, the present administration are not concerned about this and are doing nothing. But happily Westminster, as an authority, is now coming forward with an imaginative scheme. That is splendid because any scheme that will take old, broken-down, clapped-out dwellings and give them to people who are willing to work on them themselves, and they can then have their own homes, must be good and a benefit for housing generally.

My noble friend Lady Gardner also spoke about shorthold. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, "Well, it has been disastrous". I say on this issue the same as I said on enterprise zones; anything which attempts to improve a situation and which makes it better can never be said to he disastrous, because it is only making better something already existing. There are now several thousand homes let under shorthold. Certainly over 5,000 was the figure at the end of last year. It is going up now. I would have to remind the noble Baroness (and I do this as gently as I can) that the scheme would have had much more success had her right honourable friend in another place not announced at the time of its introduction that should his party eventually come to office—in that unlikely but not impossible event—they would do away with shorthold. What encouragement under shortholds can that be to landlords to let? So, with respect to the noble Baroness, she must not say too much about the achievements or otherwise of shortholds.

My noble friend Lady Gardner talked about dentists, and I understand that a review is going on along. the lines she mentioned. While I am sure that today she will not expect me to be too specific on the subject, I hope she is pleased to hear me say that. She also referred to exactly what rate increases mean when a district or borough levies its own rate, only to find that the precepts from outside bodies—the GLC, ILEA or metropolitan counties—make almost a mockery of what they have achieved. How can one react, except feel depressed about it? Those concerned with the matter can be assured that the Government are very cognisant of it. I must choose my words carefully; I will only say that it cannot stay like that forever.

My noble friend Lady Gardner also talked about abolishing rates on empty property, which is a real problem for many people. I know of at least two people who have actually pulled down property on which they could not afford the rates. What an indictment that is! I would only tell my noble friend that we have powers to change the 50 per cent. mentioned in the Act, and that we are watching the situation carefully.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans, said the shire counties got more favourable resources than the towns and cities. I wish he were with me at some of the consultative meetings I have to attend, when we hear the opposite case put most forcefully. I think everyone would say that certainly this year, in the last settlement, extra emphasis was placed on the GRAs (the grant-relation assessments) for social services and other such factors. There are now 62 factors going to make the rate support grant settlement, and we are attaching much emphasis to those problems precisely to help the inner cities.

Both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned Knowsley. The noble Baroness agreed that her own Government did not designate Knowsley, and she went on to say—I noted her words carefully—that they would have hoped for a change. I am not sure what she meant by that, unless she meant it was hoped we would make a change. Again, I can only tell her—I hope this will comfort her—that we are always willing to review the matter of designation. What we try to do in cases like Knowsley, Sandwell and Coventry—there are areas which are not designated—is to give extra help under the traditional urban programme which, as she knows, is another source of funds.

When we see the programmes for near-miss authorities—what a dreadful term that is; I cannot think of being called anything worse than a near-miss authority—we try to look very favourably at their applications for projects and schemes and be helpful to them. I assure the noble Baroness that the game is not over and that we are looking into the issue all the time. Imagine the position if we were to say, "Yes, we are about to announce new designated areas, but the following will no longer be designated". We should start receiving delegations as soon as the list was published. There is only so much money and it must be spread out.

I have said most of what I wanted to say, although I could go on speaking for hours on this subject which, as noble Lords will be aware, is very close to my heart.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that we had a Statement earlier and that at least 40 minutes remain before we shall have completed two and a half hours on this debate?

Lord Bellwin

I am tempted, my Lords, and in view of my noble friend's interruption, the very least I can do is refer specifically to the point he made about the number of small sites standing idle in inner areas, and he even suggested that some of them should be given away to people willing to develop them. So far as Scottish cities are concerned, I must refer that suggestion to the Scottish Office, and I take pleasure in so doing.

In England, through our land register initiative we are making sure that public authorities take a more realistic view of their land holdings, and we have decided to concentrate on larger sites so far as the formal registers are concerned. Some very interesting results are coming out of the land register procedure, to which I did not refer earlier in the interest of some brevity, despite the comments of my noble friend Lord Ferrier. But as I have been reminded that I might take a little more of your Lordships' time (I hope the Chief Whip is not listening) I should perhaps comment on the remarks of my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the need for more open spaces in inner cities, a subject to which my noble friend Lord Ferrier also referred. She referred to East London, and I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner will tell us of the GLC's efforts, notably Victoria Park in Hackney and Burgess Park in Southwark, both major new parks.

Under the urban programme, we have helped to fund a number of new open space developments, many of them small-scale environmental improvements; for example, improving the surroundings of some of the tower blocks to which my noble friend Lord Ferrier referred, or opening up some of the derelict sites, surrounded by rusty corrugated iron, which despoil our cities. Some of them have been on a larger scale; for example, the new open space surrounding the Britannia Leisure Centre, which was also built up in Hackney with urban programme support.

Being the final speaker for the Government in debates of this kind—I sometimes feel that I should go into the watchmaking business, I wind up so much—one is always concerned lest one has not referred to the points made by so many of your Lordships, many of which in this debate have been particularly apposite. I promise that I shall write to any noble Lord whose point I have not covered, in so far as it is a matter which concerns the Government, and I am sure my noble friend Lady Gardner will have a comment to make about that.

I conclude by saying that urban problems are not confined just to these shores; we are looking also at what is being done in other countries, at how they are trying to tackle their problems, not least in the United States, and some of their experiences are very helpful to us. As I said at the beginning, the problems which the areas we have been discussing face have been developing over decades and the real solution will be slow. However, I hope I have shown, at least so far as the Government are concerned, that we have begun that process, and we are determined it will succeed.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I wish to thank those who have taken part in the debate. I have greatly appreciated their contributions, which have been very wide-ranging and which have taught me a great deal about other cities I knew little of. I. also thank the Minister for a comprehensive and detailed reply. I appreciate his comments and I am grateful to him for mentioning the amount the GLC has done to provide open spaces. I would only add that apart from open spaces on the land, they have done a great deal to encourage water facilities and recreation on the Thames and canals of London, and those are not to be overlooked. Again I thank the Minister, and I am most grateful because he covered almost all the points raised in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.