---

Mrs. Natascha Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the Thames Gateway. Before anyone else tells me, I know that the Thames does not run through North-East Derbyshire.

I want to pick up on the theme of the Thames Gateway as a regeneration project. What is happening in North-East Derbyshire defines regeneration. Harry Barnes, the MP for the past 18 years, spent much of his time putting in the foundations for that regeneration and overseeing many historic changes. Harry had to deal with the devastating consequences of mass pit closures and the resulting unemployment, but he made sure that North-East Derbyshire got its share of compensation and clean-up money. Right to the end, only weeks before his retirement, Harry got millions of pounds from this Labour Government to clean up the environmental mess left by the Avenue coking works in Wingerworth.

Regeneration is about change—change for the better—but it is also about building on what we have. North-East Derbyshire used to be dominated by mining and steel, and we still have a working pit in Eckington, but both industries are in decline nationally and locally. Although many of the mines are closed today, it is brilliant to see that the community spirit that bound people together in the villages is alive and kicking. That spirit has survived and adapted to our new industrial landscape, and it is the spirit of socialism. Without socialism, regenerating our communities and helping those who live in them to develop and grow would not be possible—it is the simple idea that if someone helps their neighbour, their neighbour will help them.

Speaking of neighbours, I thank all the Labour Members in Derbyshire, who have made me so welcome. I was introduced to the Derbyshire Labour
 
20 Oct 2005 : Column 1013
 
MPs when I was on maternity leave, and they brought me on a campaign to prevent the closure of medical assessment centres in Chesterfield and Derby. Yesterday, it was announced that both centres will stay open. That was achieved only by the collective strength of the Derbyshire Labour MPs working together with a national Labour Government. This is, to me, the spirit of trade unionism.

True socialism and trade unionism, the very roots of the Labour movement and the essence of regeneration, are about recognising that an individual finds dignity in work, self-esteem in skills and a sense of civic pride in community engagement. From the ashes of coal dust and the coking plants, we have grown higher-tech, higher-skilled and more highly paid jobs.

The Markham employment zone at junction 29A, which is more commonly known in our part of the world as Skinner's junction, gives us a unique opportunity to look a decade ahead.—[Interruption.] It is called Skinner's junction. We can identify the skills that are needed, train local people to do a job of work and let them apply their new skills. The pits, the coking plants and the steel works have also blighted much of our countryside. That project means that we are developing an expertise in cleaning up the environmental mess that we created. Skinner's junction is employing hundreds in the construction industry today, and it will provide anything up to 5,000 jobs in the future. In the same way as London and the south-east of England have embraced the Thames Gateway, we must grab that opportunity with both hands.

As MPs, our challenge is to make sure that good ideas and projects are supported by good public policy. The biggest problem with national legislation is that there is no one size that fits all—all people are different and no two circumstances are the same, which is why our Labour Government's policy on localism is so exciting. Localism is about breaking the culture of centralism and devolving power and resources to communities. In North-East Derbyshire, there is a fantastic example of how that works in practice.

The Staveley neighbourhood management project was set up about three years ago by the Deputy Prime Minister to address the problems of declining industries. Community-level services are co-ordinated and tailored to suit the needs of the community. The project covers everything from health, education and housing to transport, crime and community safety—just about every aspect of national government—but they are Staveley's policies matched to the needs of the people of Staveley.

Another village, Grassmoor, recently built a brand new community centre. It is heavily used, but not by the younger people who live there. The centre therefore organised a day of activities to attract young people in and to find out what they wanted. Apart from learning some fencing, archery and ox-boxing—I still do not know what that is—I spoke to a lot of the 12 and 13-year-olds about what they would normally be doing on a Sunday afternoon. They all said that they would be watching telly, hanging around or doing "whatever"; none of them would have been charging around, full of energy and enthusiasm and learning new things. This is what national taxpayers' money should be supporting. Who knows, one of these kids could take up fencing and end up representing us all at the 2012 Olympics.
 
20 Oct 2005 : Column 1014
 

As politicians, we must have the ability to look ahead not just for years but for generations. Whether it is building a Sure Start centre in North Wingfield, a brand new primary school in Clay Cross, or a secondary school in Dronfield, we have to look at what we will leave behind. We must make the best use of what we are already lucky enough to have, however big or small. At the moment, I feel like the luckiest person alive. I am doing a job that I love and the possibilities seem endless.

We have an industrial culture and manufacturing skills that are second to none. I want us to continue that tradition in North-East Derbyshire by building a university for manufacturing to harness and pass on those skills to future generations. I want to see true regeneration whereby we equip the young people of today with enough confidence and know-how to make decisions about the future. If younger people are to take the lead in rejuvenating our communities, it is down to us to give them the skills to do it, and we must respect their decisions if we want to be respected in turn.

Harry Barnes is a sincere and respectful man, and as a result he earned a mountain of respect in his 18 years as MP for North-East Derbyshire. I have only been an MP for a few months, but I have already made my own personal contribution to regenerating North-East Derbyshire—I had a baby a couple of weeks after the general election. It seems that a lot of other MPs on both sides of the House have done the same. It is good to have plenty of new parents here. We need a more representative mixture of parliamentarians. It gives us a stronger focus on life outside this Chamber and keeps us closer to the real-life experiences of many of our constituents. It might keep us up at night, but most importantly it will keep our feet on the ground.

I am really pleased to be making my maiden speech during a debate led by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for regeneration. She is living proof that it is possible to combine good parenthood with the work of an MP. On top of that, she has always taken time to give me good practical advice. In fact, it was she who told me that none of us can get too self-important when we are walking around with baby sick on our shoulders.

I hope that all the kind voters of North-East Derbyshire who put me here and everyone in Westminster—all my hon. Friends and all the staff who work here—will make sure that I never get too self-important and help me to do the job that I was put here to do—to represent everyone in North-East Derbyshire to the very best of my ability.

1.13 pm

Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mrs. Engel), who, as I am sure the whole House will agree, made an articulate, passionate and very human speech. It was nice to hear. Often, this House can be tremendously pompous, so it was a great relief to hear somebody speak in a human way about her life, passions and experience, and what brought her into politics. I suspect that as a passionate Liberal rather than a passionate socialist I will often disagree with the hon. Lady, but I look forward to doing so often. I am certain that she will make an enormous contribution to this House. I congratulate her on a superb speech that has set the tone for the debate, which I am sure I shall now let down.
 
20 Oct 2005 : Column 1015
 

To echo the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) I hope that the comments of Liberal Democrat Members will be taken in a constructive manner. We, too, think that the Thames Gateway offers a tremendous opportunity. We disagree on some of the details, but I hope that the Minister will take my comments in the helpful spirit in which they are intended.

In her usual impressive way, the Minister went through the complexities of the project. It is very complex indeed. We are wholly signed up to the view that there is a need for many more homes in the south-east, but we do not agree that the only way to deal with the housing crisis is through shared equity schemes and the abolition of stamp duty. Such schemes may play a part, but we passionately believe that there is a great need for far more housing in the area. We do not agree that all that housing needs to be provided through brand new homes—there are other opportunities of which the Government need to make more use. We believe that the priority for any development must be to do with sustainability, jobs and transport—issues that the Minister touched on—as well as environmental considerations, which are key. Many of these developments will be on flood plains, but also, ironically, in areas that suffer from a shortage of water resources. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson), who is hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would like particularly to cover environmental considerations such as flooding, drainage, building regulations and transport issues, so I will leave the detail of those to him in the hope that he has that opportunity to speak.

We need to recognise that although the Thames Gateway offers something that London lacks—the space that we need—it is not a blank canvas. About 2 million people already live there, many in areas that are among the most deprived in the country. We must ensure that the benefits of the project are felt not only by families moving into the area but by those who already live there. It is vital that, unlike the docklands developments in the 1980s, local people are fully involved all the way through and have their views recognised and put into the proposals.

Let me deal with the need for more homes, which is controversial in this House. We do need more homes because hundreds of thousands of people across the south-east cannot afford a decent place to live. It is not just about buying property—there is a desperate need for social rented accommodation. I represent an area in north-west London where the housing crisis is critical. Every week in my surgery I meet people who have been on a housing waiting list for 10 or 15 years, living in appalling overcrowding. That situation is replicated across the whole of the south-east. The implications for people's lives are enormous and devastating.

It is easy to talk about the statistics, but too often we forget what they mean for families who live in such appalling conditions. I meet people who have a family member with TB, which is then passed on across the whole family. We would not expect to find that in the century in which we live, yet it is happening all across the south-east, and at a frightening level in my constituency. People living in temporary
 
20 Oct 2005 : Column 1016
 
accommodation get moved on, lose contact with their GP and are unable to keep up with their drugs, so the TB develops resistance. We do not expect that level of poverty, but it is what we are dealing with. That is why we need so many more homes. Record numbers of people are in temporary accommodation—Shelter estimates that there are 73,000 across London. Many key workers, as well as young professionals with families, are priced out of the market.

The proposed scale of development is phenomenal, but I do not agree that it should be all about new homes. There are 750,000 empty homes in the UK, including almost 60,000 in the eastern region, about 90,000 in London and 80,000 in the south-east—a total of about 280,000 empty homes in the areas that we are discussing. In addition, about 1 million residential units could be created in empty commercial space above shops—at least 75,000 in London alone. The Government have introduced the empty homes and living over the shop initiatives and they give tax breaks for owners who put flats above shops, but much more could be done. The Government recently closed their consultation on the empty property management orders. I urge them to produce their report on that consultation, use it and introduce secondary legislation as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) argued strongly for that during the passage of the Housing Bill and we are keen for the initiative to be implemented.

We also believe that there is an option of equalising VAT on renovation and new build and we urge the Government to consider that. The Treasury has considered introducing VAT on greenfield development, but that has been postulated more as a method of getting money for infrastructure development than of providing a tax break for renovations and conversion. I would be interested to know whether any discussions had taken place about those proposals.

Localising business rates and giving councils the ability to provide incentives for businesses to come to an area would help to regenerate business and the economy. I was therefore disappointed that the Government postponed the Lyons review, and I would welcome assurances that they are still considering the idea. Since 1997, they have said that they would consider it, and I should like to know whether the Minister remains keen on it.

The demographics of the population should be clearly understood when new homes are built. We have an ageing population, but also many more single people living alone. We also have a high proportion of ethnic minority communities who may require large properties because they live in extended families. That is a problem in my constituency, where the shortage of larger properties especially disadvantages members of Asian communities who wish to live together. In the winding-up speech, will the Minister detail the sort of demographic mapping that the Government have undertaken and what further work they plan?

In a response to an intervention, the Minister said that the Government recognised the great need for affordable housing. Have they set a target for that in the Thames Gateway development? What would be the breakdown between affordable housing and the social rented sector? As other hon. Members have said, that is a key priority for the area. In a deprived
 
20 Oct 2005 : Column 1017
 
community, the social rented sector is often squeezed out in favour of affordable housing initiatives. Although the latter are important, they leave many people in a position that is no better than their previous circumstances.

The Government have a national target of 60 per cent. for new development on brownfield sites, but the Thames Gateway development has exceeded it so far. That is welcome. Is there a presumption that such developments should take place on brownfield sites? I hope that that question will be answered later.

The Government are publishing new planning guidance this autumn setting out what regional density should be. They said that the density in the Thames Gateway should be 40 dwellings per hectare, which means, given the existing brownfield site, that almost all that housing could be built on brownfield, with extra capacity. Perhaps more could be said about that later.

The key point is to ensure that the development is carried out with great care. Other developments have not always been as successful as we hoped. New towns are the only analogy to the project when we look back to try to learn from previous mistakes. Many of the English new towns constitute some of the most deprived areas in local authority terms. All but two are more deprived than the counties in which they reside and many have never grown as planned. For example, Skelmersdale was supposed to have a population of 80,000, but never made it beyond 40,000. Corby was planned for 100,000 people, but has never grown beyond 50,000. We need to examine what stopped that growth.

A key factor is the way in which we develop the plan. We have argued that developments should be based around town centres and not simply be urban sprawl, to ensure that the transport links are as efficient as possible. I appreciate that the 14 growth zones have been proposed, but to what extent is the development happening in them? What is being done to ensure that it is situated around key towns and clear town centres?

The Thames Gateway has challenges but also benefits. The Minister mentioned the wonderful opportunity that the Olympics provides. She also referred to the Eurostar terminal. However, much of the brownfield land is contaminated and expensive to redevelop. The Government have introduced a contaminated land tax credit. That is an interesting idea and I would like to know whether the Government will publish any figures or feedback on how well it is working and say whether it has borne fruit or made no impact. I should be interested to hear about that in the winding-up speech, or perhaps the Government could place some of that information in the Library.

As other hon. Members have said, Crossrail is a vital part of the redevelopment. The Crossrail Bill is progressing slowly through Parliament. Second Reading was on 18 July, but the measure needs to go to a Special Select Committee, yet no date has been set for that. What is being done to ensure that it gets through Parliament as quickly as possible so that the development can happen?

Conservative Members made interventions about social infrastructure. It will be tremendously expensive. Kent says that it alone will need £1.05 billion by 2021 to provide transport, schools, health and community
 
20 Oct 2005 : Column 1018
 
facilities and to make the growth sustainable. In March 2005, the Government announced approximately £2 billion for the next five years. However, the management consultants Hornagold and Hills reported in January 2005 that the Thames Gateway will need 300 primary schools, 70 secondary schools, two universities, 100 playgrounds, 70 water-pumping stations, 80 sewage treatment works, 4,000 police officers, 10 hospitals, 180 GP surgeries, 150 recycling sites and 50 additional railway stations. That is quite a shopping list of requirements. Do the Government propose to commit to funding them? If so, how? Are they reserving land now, while it is cheaper because it is undeveloped, for those purposes before land prices increase?

The Government have hinted at a variety of initiatives that they may use to fund the infrastructure. I have already mentioned VAT on greenfield development. A planning gains supplement, planning tariffs and a development land tax have been mooted. When are the Government likely to introduce proposals so that they can be discussed, debated and scrutinised in the House? What work is being done to ensure that any proposals for consultation are not likely to damage land supply, which has been a problem when such schemes have been introduced previously?

I want to deal with some of the other issues to do with ensuring that communities benefit. Six of the London boroughs in the Thames Gateway area have long housing waiting lists. Their combined housing waiting list is approximately 51,000 households. All waiting lists in London are rapidly getting longer. Many people live in poor quality housing. What assurances can the Government give that people in such circumstances will benefit in 2016 from the proposed development?

The Learning and Skills Council has said that 112,000 of the 194,000 new jobs to be created in the area by 2016 will need applicants with A-level or degree-level qualifications. However, the number of people in higher education in the area is 20 per cent. below the national average. The Minister spoke about the expansion of the three universities, but what work is being done to encourage those people into higher and, especially, further education? My constituency includes one of the main centres of excellence for construction courses. It has found that the Government's initiatives to get people into level 2 and access courses in further education are causing a squeeze on the expensive construction courses and making it difficult to meet the required demand. I hope that the Minister will comment on that in the winding-up speech.

We are committed to the project. We have some specific concerns, which I have tried to detail, but the project is exciting and it is important to work together in a cross-party way to ensure that it works and is a lasting monument to regeneration in the area.

1.29 pm

---