HL Deb 27 July 1989 vol 510 cc1633-7
Lord Henley

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Central Electricity Generating Board) Order 1989

Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989

Bristol Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989

The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the orders laid before the House on 22nd June, 14th June and 23rd June be approved [25th and 26th Reports from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motions in my name. I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be to the convenience of the House if I move all the Motions which appear in my name on the Order Paper.

There are three orders before your Lordships' House today which between them will vest some 12.65 hectares of publicly owned land in the Black Country and Bristol Development Corporations. Your Lordships had an opportunity to debate 11 other UDC vesting orders a couple of weeks ago. On that occasion I explained that urban development corporations are set up under the provisions of Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to secure the regeneration of their designated areas.

Among the powers bestowed on the corporations to assist them in their task are the powers to acquire, manage and dispose of land and other property. With the 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 potential investors.

One of the ways in which UDCs may acquire land is by means of orders, such as these, made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State under Section 141 of the 1980 Act. Under this section my right honourable friend may vest in a corporation land held by local auhorities, statutory undertakers and other public bodies.

These three orders were declared hybrid when they were laid, and so were subject to a 14-day petitioning period under Standing Order 216 of this House. I am glad to say that no petitions were received against two of these orders. A holding petition was lodged against the Black Country Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989, but was quickly withdrawn following further negotiations between the corporation and British Rail.

The two Black Country orders will vest some 3.03 hectares in four plots from Britsh Rail and two plots totalling 6.32 hectares from the Central Electricity Generating Board. The British Rail sites will be developed comprehensively in association with neighbouring plots; of the CEGB sites, one will be used for public open space, and the other for essential infrastructure.

The Bristol Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (British Railways Board) Order 1989 contains two sites together totalling some 3.3 hectares. One of the sites forms a disused railway embankment in the south of the urban development area; the other, an underused site close to the city centre and the railway station, offers a major development opportunity.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships for too long so close to the start of the Summer recess. At our previous vesting order debate a fortnight ago, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, stated that his side of the House recognised the important part that is being played by development corporations. I hope that the same view will prevail today.

If your Lordships approve these Motions, the Black Country orders will come into effect tomorrow; the Bristol order has not yet been considered by another place, and must now wait until after the Summer Recess. I commend each of the orders to the House.

Moved, That the orders laid before the House on 22nd June, 14th June and 23rd June be approved [25th and 26th Reports from the Joint Committed].—(The Earl of Arran.)

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, Members on this side of the House wish to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister who I believe will be taking on major responsibilities in another department, perhaps as well as continuing his interest in this particular department. However, as is the fashion today, it is hail and farewell. I do not know, but this may well be a valedictory opportunity for the Minister. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on what I sense to be a promotion, which is well deserved.

The Minister has been kind enough to give a brief history of the genesis of the urban development corporations. I recall this issue very well because in another place I served on the committee concerned with the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It was a traumatic experience because it was on that occasion that the Minister in charge of the Bill, Mr. Tom King, sprang on members of the committee the concept of urban development corporations. Moreover, in the same Bill we also had the concept of the enterprise zones.

As the record will show, Members on my side of the House vigorously opposed not the concept—which is designed to regenerate disused land and make a better co-ordinated use of resources—but the undemocratic nature of the management control and guidance of the urban development corporation. Indeed, we continue to object to that aspect.

Of course, we have the opportunity to look at the record of what has been achieved over the past eight or nine years. Interestingly enough, living in London and being a London local authority man, the one in which I take the greatest interest is the London Docklands Development Corporation which, together with Merseyside Development Corporation, was given life in that Bill. Subsequently, of course we have the others.

The Minister and his colleagues will need to take carefully on board the fact that under a future Labour Government, which may not be far away, the whole raison d'être of urban development corporations will be looked at closely. We have always strongly objected to the fact that the local authorities within whose areas the urban development corporations sit, play scant part in the activities of the corporations. Despite what has been achieved by the London Docklands Development Corporation—I acknowledge that a great deal has been achieved—the voice of local people has been frozen out. The best way for local people to have their voice articulated is through their local councillors.

Before we move on from these matters, can the Minister say to what extent the local councillors in the areas of the Black Country Development Corporation and the Bristol Development Corporation have been invited to serve on those corporations. There may be an injection of capital; there is certainly in the first instance a considerable injection of government capital and there is also an injection of private capital. Private capital is invested wholly because of the private sector's assessment of getting a good return. We know that a great many people have made a bomb and have become rich through the London Docklands Development Corporation. I refer to building companies and to others in similar businesses.

What we want in the development corporations is a partnership. What we do not have is a partnership between local people, local councils and the corporations. There may well be a partnership between government and big business. There is little partnership between government and small business. One of the bitter complaints in the London Docklands has been the extent to which the little people have been frozen out, not only in respect of businesses but also in respect of housing. The cost of housing is astronomical.

This is not an occasion on which to cavil at what the Minister says about the transfer from one form of public ownership to another of 12-6 hectares, which is a tiny piece of land. To the extent that it will help the urban development corporation better to do its work, we have no complaints. However, I want to stress that we are not at all happy with the fact that local councils are being given little opportunity to influence what is going on. A Labour Government will be looking to see how we can alter the arrangements. Can the Minister give an indication of the extent to which local people, especially councillors, will be represented on these bodies?

4.15 p.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's warm congratulations on my appointment to the Ministry of Defence. I should like to say at the same time what an interesting and happy time I have had at the Department of the Environment. I shall never relinquish my interest in the department.

I am not altogether surprised by the noble Lord's line of criticism about what he calls the unaccountability of and the lack of democracy in the urban development corporations. They are, of course, accountable to Parliament via my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There are many opportunities for their actions to be considered, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, where there have already been six hours of debate for this year's round of vesting orders.

I should also say that most board members have strong links with their UDC area and my right honourable friend has appointed local councillors to the board of each corporation to ensure that there are people with special knowledge on the board. Many UDC procedures were based on the precedent of the new towns established by the post-war Labour Government. Those board members were all appointed by the Secretary of State.

More specifically this afternoon I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that as regards the Black Country and Bristol there are four councillors on the board of the Black Country Development Corporation and three on the Bristol Development Corporation, including the deputy chairman. I hope that I have answered the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I commend the orders to the House.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am grateful to him for his helpfulness in the matter. However, he merely confirms what we think is a wrong situation. Everyone who serves on these bodies is a place-man or woman whose position is in the gift of the Secretary of State. The Minister tells us that councillors are put there by the Secretary of State. I say that in London the councillors of Greenwich, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Newham are entitled to feel that they know best which men or women are entitled to represent their areas.

Because the people whom the Minister appoints are local councillors they will know a great deal about the area. However, they carry the confidence of the Secretary of State and not necessarily the confidence of the local people and the local council. It is all of a piece with what the Government are doing in so many fields. They arrogantly believe that they know best and that they are better able to judge the mood of the local people than the local people themselves. I give the Minister and his colleagues warning that when Labour gets into power that omission will be put right.

On Question, Motions agreed to.