§ 12.48 a.m.
§ The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
§ The noble Earl said: My Lods, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. With the leave of the House, your Lordships may find it convenient if I speak at the same time to the 10 other orders also in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The 11 orders that we are considering this evening vest around 207 hectares of publicly owned land in six urban development corporations. The House may find it helpful if I briefly explain some of the background to these orders.
§ As your Lordships will know, urban development corporations are established under the provisions of Part XV1 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 to secure the regeneration of their designated areas. To achieve this they have a wide 245 range of powers, including the powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land and property. With land in their control they are able to assemble sites for redevelopment, reclaim derelict and polluted land and service sites to make them attractive to investors.
§ One of the ways by which land can be obtained is by vesting orders, such as those we are considering tonight, made under Section 141 of the 1980 Act. This section empowers my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to vest in urban development corporations land owned by local authorities, statutory undertakers and other public bodies.
§ Your Lordships may find it helpful if I outline briefly the problems of the six UDCs involved in these orders, and describe the provisions of the orders. The Black Country Development Corporation's area was once dominated by metal-based manufacturing industry. As this has declined it has left an abandoned and neglected landscape: The two orders before your Lordships' House tonight vest in that corporation 87 hectares of land owned by the boroughs of Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton, the Severn Trent Water Authority, the British Waterways Board and the West Midlands Residuary Body.
§ The Leeds Development Corporation is one of the third generation UDCs. Its area is relatively small, comprising two parts of inner city Leeds. An area south of the city centre contains a mix of industrial and commercial uses and a number of derelict, disused and vacant sites. The second area is in the Kirkstall Valley and is dominated by the vacant site of a former power station. The vesting orders will transfer 13.2 hectares of land to the development corporation. This land is currently owned by Leeds City Countil, the British Waterways Board, the West Yorkshire Residuary Body and British Rail.
§ Your Lordships will probably be familiar with the work of London Docklands. This corporation was set the job of securing the regeneration of the rundown and derelict docks of East London, both north and south of the Thames. The corporation has been a spectacular success. So far it has attracted over £6 billion of private sector investment to its area. The vesting orders will transfer to the corporation 2–4 hectares of land currently in the ownership of the Port of London, Thames Water and the London Borough of Newham.
§ The Merseyside orders include 50 hectares of land presently owned by the City of Liverpool, the borough of Wirral, the Merseyside Residuary Body, British Rail, the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive and Merseyside Transport Limited. Nearly all this land is in the newly extended area of the development corporation. This is an area primarily of industrial and commercial land, much of it now in need of regeneration.
§ The Sheffield Development Corporation covers some 900 hectares in the lower Don Valley to the north east of the city centre. The decline of the steel industry struck the area badly, leaving large areas of derelict and unused land and an unattractive 246 environment. The one vesting order will transfer 2.62 hectares of British Rail land to the corporation.
§ The Tyne and Wear Development Corporation consists of two areas along the banks of the rivers Tyne and Wear. Your Lordships will be familiar with the problems the North-East has faced. The traditional heavy industries have contracted, leaving behind a legacy of high levels of unemployment and industrial dereliction. Following last year's vesting orders, these two orders vest some 52 hectares of land in the corporation from the City of Newcastle, the boroughs of North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland, the Port of Tyne Authority and British Rail.
§ In conclusion urban development corporations are proving to be effective tools for tackling the problems of decay and dereliction in the hearts of some of our major cities. They are showing that vitality can be brought back to these areas, and that environments can be created where people will once again want to live and work. The orders before the House this evening will, if approved, greatly assist the UDCs in this task. If this House agrees, the orders will be debated in another place next week. I commend each of the orders to the House. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the order laid before the House on 14th June be approved—[24th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Arran.)
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for the care he took in doing justice to the orders. I know that earlier in the evening he would have genuinely enjoyed a debate on the matters before us. However, because of the circumscription on our time tonight, he and I will have to forgo some of that. Nevertheless, we have responsibilities.
The noble Earl will accept that the basis of all the vestings is agreement between the various bodies concerned. We have come a long way since the concept of the urban development corporation was first introduced in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. I served on the Bill in another place and I know that the creation of the London Docklands Development Corporation and the Merseyside Development Corporation caused a great deal of concern. That was primarily because they were undemocratic in the eyes of the Labour Party. They are still as undemocratic, but I should like to acknowledge the reality of their achievements and the manner in which they have carried them out.
I should not go as far as the Minister in saying that in respect of London it has been a spectacular success. It may have been so for many who have invested large sums of money and received back even larger sums quickly. Certainly there is a great deal to the credit of the London Docklands Development Corporation and I shall not cavil at that.
Can the Minister help in respect of the Merseyside Development Corporation? The explanatory note states that:
In some instances where the present ownership of the land to be vested is a matter of dispute between two or mere of the bodies mentioned in the Schedule to this Order or where the bodies own 247 different interests in the land, the description of the land is, to that extent, duplicated in the Schedule".I am under the impression that the concept of having the right by legislation to vest land owned by one public body in another is not in dispute. Can the Minister help the House and colleagues in another place by explaining the basis upon which a dispute occurs? I shall understand if he is unable to do so.I listened carefully to the Minister. He said that, when one looks at the size of the pieces of land affected, it is clear that they are pocket handkerchiefs which for one reason or another have been neglected or gone by default. I can see the good sense of vesting that land in the urban development corporations so that they can make better use of that small area together with others around it.
We on this side of the House recognise the important part that is being played by the development corporation idea and their creation around the country. They are a useful economic tool in the hands of an enterprising authority. However, the Minister must also take on board that those put on the board undemocratically can do their job only if they have a good relationship with the local authorities in whose areas they are seeking to work. The orders demonstrate that almost universally that goodwill is present. I am quite certain that it also exists as regards Merseyside. However, perhaps the Minister could answer the point I raised.
§ The Earl of ArranMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his comments. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in congratulating him not only on his stamina but also on his versatility, having just dealt with the Northern Ireland orders.
With the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the local authorities, the statutory undertakers and other public bodies for their constructive attitude to all these orders. Once they are approved in another place—and we hope that that will take place next week—the land will be transferred to the corporations. That will greatly assist them in their task of bringing new life to run-down inner city areas.
As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, concerning Merseyside, it was discovered that the Merseyside Residuary Body, as successor to the former county council, had interests in land otherwise used by Liverpool City Council and the Borough of Wirral. Those disputes derived from poor record keeping and confusion in the transfer. I hope that the answer assists the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I hope that he is satisfied with it.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I understand what the Minister said; namely, that it is not a dispute in that there is an argument as to who owns the land or what should happen to it, but rather confusion caused by the creation of succeeding authorities over the land. I hope that that is a fair interpretation of what the Minister said, and on that basis I do not ask him to rise to his feet again.
§ The Earl of ArranMy Lords, if it is in order, I should like to move the first Motion together with the remaining 10 en bloc.
Lord MorrisMy Lords, I must object to that. Unless there has been a government Motion to move these orders en bloc they must be moved severally and not jointly.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I believe that my noble friend is at fault there. With the permission of the House, it is possible to move a number of Motions en bloc. No, I apologise to my noble friend: I was misleading the House. The Motions have to be moved separately.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.