| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Although I agree with the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats can make promises knowing that they will never be in a position to fulfil them. It is probably fair to say that the hon. Gentleman has not been with us long and will not be with us very long. I am afraid that that showed in some of the comments that he made. He did not seem to be aware of what was going on. He talked about regulations and pushing down on business, rather than of using the techniques available to the Government to encourage business.
The hon. Gentleman focused mainly on planning issues and it is probably worth dealing with them first. We have set out our aims for the town centres. They are to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres, to focus development--especially retail development--in locations which allow all consumers to benefit, and to maximise the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car, while recognising the importance of the car. The hon. Gentleman is married and I presume that his wife does the weekly shop in the supermarket. I am sure that she would thank him very much if she had to traipse home with the 80 or 90 lb of weekly shopping on the bus. She would have arms as long as an orang-utan's.
We also aim to ensure the availability of a wide range of shops, employment, services and facilities to which people have easy access by a choice of means of transport. Those objectives were set out in planning policy guidance note 13. It advises local authorities that town and district centres should be the preferred locations for developments that attract many trips and that they should adopt planning polices to locate major developments which generate a lot of travel in existing centres, where access by a choice of transport--not only the car--is easy and convenient.
PPG13 further advises local authorities to adopt policies to enable town, district and local centres to meet the needs of residents in their area; to safeguard and strengthen existing local centres in both urban and rural communities, which offer a range of day-to-day community, shopping and employment opportunities;to maintain and improve opportunities for people to walk, cycle or catch public transport; and to ensure an appropriate supply of attractive, convenient and safe parking for shopping and leisure trips.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned PPG6, which we published in revised form in July 1993. That refocused development towards town centres. It was introduced in the light of the effect of out-of-town shopping centres and was reviewed almost immediately by the Select Committee on the Environment.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, before he came into the House, there was a debate that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), speaking on behalf of the Labour party, called a love-in. That was a slight exaggeration, but what he meant was that there was considerable agreement. The Government agreed with the points that were made as well.
That debate, in effect, set the sequential approach: developers and local authorities should look, first, for town centre sites and, only if those sites are unavailable, for edge-of-centre sites. Only when sites in existing centres, including district centres, have been exhausted should out-of-centre sites be considered, and those would have to be accessed by a choice of means of transport.
We expect flexibility and realism. Local authorities must be realistic about the sites that they suggest. Developers need to be more flexible about the format and scale of development and parking and servicing arrangements. Developments need to fit in with local circumstances. I must stress again, however, that the plan-led and sequential approach applies not just to shopping, but to other key town centre uses. We want town centres again to be the focus for development and to take advantage not only of their accessibility, but of the synergy that can be achieved. Our policies on out-of-centre development apply as much to shopping as to offices and to leisure and other facilities that attract many people, including housing.
Of course, there is much more to it than just planning. We have touched on transport. The Government's approach on transport involves bus deregulation, privatisation, the provision especially of light rail and trams and tube investment, which has come from both Government and the private sector. The private finance initiative is the in-phrase.
We have also improved and encouraged, especially in London, local control of parking and its enforcement. That has had an effect in persuading people to use public transport. We have promoted, pushed and backed financially the development of local town centre management. That has been supported by the Government and by councils and businesses together, because businesses recognise its importance. Businesses are now coming in. Many businesses that were promoting out-of-town shopping centres are now working in towns. Particular tribute should be paid to Boots and Marks and Spencer, which have been joined by Sainsbury, Esso, Brown and Root and many others.
The Government understand the difficulties faced by some urban, rural, town and city centres. Especially where long-established traditional industries have declined, the economies have suffered and, in some cases, more affluent residents have moved out. Change is a fact of modern life, but it is the root of our wealth as well, so we must seek a sense of continuity. That is the source of our confidence and well-being.
We need to help towns and cities adapt to the changing demands of the modern economy, an economy which must compete internationally. We have specifically targeted those areas. In the past five years, we have invested almost £1.8 billion through urban development corporations alone, £300 million through housing action trusts, £1.7 billion through estate action and almost£800 million through city challenge. Much of that money has been backed by even greater investment from the private sector. In relation to the single regeneration budget, £1 of public sector money generates between£3 and £4 from the private sector. When the private sector is there, it is there for keeps and because it knows that our inner cities are working.
Many other projects have been undertaken or are in hand. They include the urban programme, task forces, business start-up schemes, local initiative funds,
compacts, funds for teacher placements, education business partnerships, the training and enterprise challenge, programme development funds, regional enterprise grants, section 11 grants, ethnic minority grants, safer city projects and ethnic minority business initiative and city action teams. Almost £2 billion has been invested in those projects in the last five years.
Those projects are catalytic. They are drawing in the private sector and drawing people back into cities, which have been rejuvenated and rationalised under the single regeneration budget. In the next few years, a further£2 billion of SRB challenge fund money will lever in£5 billion of private sector finance. That encourages people to bring business back into inner cities and to live and to look for their leisure there--that is the right way to do it. We should not apply regulations on the outside.
Most, but not all, of the target schemes have been run by my Department. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Department for Education and Employment delivers extensive training and enterprise and enterprise and vocational training initiatives through the training and enterprise councils. Next year alone, the TECs will have access to £1.2 billion. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Department of Trade and Industry is active in business sponsorship at local level. This year it will provide, again through the TECs, almost £50 million for the establishment of business link networks and more than £80 million for business support services.
Of course money can help, but the source of initiative and enterprise lies in the encouragement of people. It is proper for the Government to give a helping hand, not a hindering hand, and then to get out of the way. The biggest factor is the national economy. Low inflation, low interest rates and high investment are the reasons why this country is doing better than any country in Europe.
Contrary to the Liberal Democrat approach, we have undertaken a programme of cutting red tape, of removing unnecessary burdens on small and big business and of getting rid of the bureaucratic silliness that occupies time and inhibits enterprise. Already, 640 regulations have been repealed or amended and another 400 are in the pipeline. For example, 500,000 of the smallest businesses no longer need to have their accounts audited. We have simplified the trade mark legislation, thus saving businesses £30 million a year, and we have implemented new systems in government to ensure that cost
compliance and risk assessments are undertaken before new legislation is presented. Those are simple, important and effective measures that particularly help inner cities. They cut costs and save time. Perhaps above all, they remove unnecessary sources of irritation for the men and women who work in business and in small businesses in inner cities.
The Government are striving to improve education standards, especially in the inner cities. We want to lift the schools so that they become attractive and people will want to place their children there in anticipation of a decent education. There is local choice in those schools and competition. The local management scheme is but one example, and there are grant-maintained schools offering new opportunities and nursery vouchers.
The Liberal Democrat response to nursery vouchers was "ridiculous". The Liberals are behind the times and damage many places. Let us look at one that is not far from here. Leatherhead is being strangled by the Liberals who are on the county council and the district council. In the inner-city sphere, Tower Hamlets is in a mess and the Liberals had power there for four years. All we got was the whiff of incompetence and local corruption. Local government has a huge role to play. It can frequently be damaging and enormous council taxes are a trade mark of the Liberal and Labour parties, as are poor services and obstructive, slow, bureaucratic procedures.
Sir Paul Beresford:
I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will not be here for long and he may as well learn.
The Liberals' obstructive, slow, bureaucratic performance and their resistance to compulsory competitive tendering and to working with the private sector are notorious. They are backing Labour in areas such as Liverpool. That beautiful city is struggling. I met a deputation from there yesterday. It has strikes, and poor performance, and every time the council touches CCT, it fails. Its workers have voted to strike. My teenage daughter has a saying that she throws at anyone who gets things really wrong. With a snarl and a curl of her lip that only a teenage young lady can show she says, "Get real." The hon. Gentleman ought to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |