---

Urbanisation (Developing Countries)

: That is a valid point; clearly there area money and businesses in the slums and there are dynamic entrepreneurs. If that money could circulate in the same area, there could be a vast improvement. Without a doubt, those who receive those high rents do not live in the slums. Money is pouring out of the pockets of slum dwellers into the pockets of those living Californian lifestyles just around the corner. As many of the people in the room have seen first hand, many walled residential developments that are protected by security firms are only two blocks down the road from squatter communities. Such communities are sometimes unrecognised by the Government and lack the most basic infrastructure and services. Indeed, it is now common in some parts of the world for between a quarter and a half of a city's population to live in a squatter settlement without official approval or recognition. Such stories paint a bleak picture, and other hon. Members have pointed to the immense problems that we face. The scale of the challenge is indeed daunting: cities have become places to fear, where crime and disease are rife. Nairobi was mentioned earlier and it is sometimes called ““Nairobbery””. Even on the recent Select Committee visit, a colleague was unfortunate enough to be robbed and mugged. However, the situation might not be all doom and gloom. There is no automatic link between rapid urban growth and urban problems. In his impressive body of work on the issue, David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development says that cities provide many potential advantages when it comes to tackling the problems that hon. Members have mentioned. The goals of ensuring universal provision of infrastructure and services, keeping down waste levels and de-linking a high quality of life from high levels of resource consumption are all more achievable in an urban setting. Far from being a cause of the current problems, cities can provide part of the long-term solution if they are governed in the right way. It is often easier to provide water supplies, drains, schools and health facilities to a static population of reasonable size in an urban area than to a smaller, mobile, rural population. There are many examples of expanding cities in low-income countries that have managed to avoid many of the problems about which we have heard. Curbita and Porto Allegre in Brazil, for example, have grown rapidly in recent years, but they have a high quality of living and innovative environmental policies. One reason for that is the improvement in local government planning, which involves all groups in the city. Many cities in poorer countries have created local Agenda 21s in response to the guidelines in Agenda 21—the action plan on sustainable development that most world Governments endorsed at the UN Earth summit in 1992. Unlike conventional city plans developed by consultants or town planning officers, these local plans involve all groups in the city in an attempt to gain a consensus on the priorities that need to be addressed. They have helped many cities to develop viable long-term planning that involves all key stakeholders and responds better to local needs and problems. That is community politics at its best. The other most obvious development that is needed to address the problems facing many urban centres is sustained investment in infrastructure and services in the poorest areas. Poverty, corruption and other social problems often mean that a major backlog of investment must be met before any real improvements can be seen. That is already happening in many cities, where major upgrading programmes have been set up. Obviously, it is impossible to generalise about what is needed in different cities in different countries, but the importance of good governance is a constant thread running through these issues. Investment and the adoption of local agendas have often been effectively supported via stronger and more accountable local democracy. For example, the introduction of city mayors and councillors has helped many city governments to be more accountable and more responsible to their citizens. When cities and smaller local authorities have power devolved to them and are empowered with sufficient resources and autonomy, they are more likely to meet their responsibilities. I want to give the Secretary of State ample time to comment, so I shall keep my concluding remarks brief. Obviously, the spectre of global poverty will hang heavy over any such discussion; indeed, the sheer scale of the problem makes it hard to see a solution. However, far from being a cause of poverty, urbanisation is one potential vehicle out of it. Rather than fretting about the pace of urbanisation, it is far better that we try to ensure that cities have effective, democratic local governments to allow them to meet the challenges that urbanisation poses. The problem is not the reality of urbanisation, but the lack of many basics of life, including infrastructure. As has been mentioned, to deal with the ill effects there must be sustained investment in water supplies, sewerage services, hospitals and schools. That will require a vast increase in investment, better planning controls, more decentralisation of power and responsibility, and increased efforts to tackle corruption. The problem of poverty in developing countries will not be solved overnight. However, urbanisation, if properly managed, may give us one tool to provide real improvements in the medium and long term. I look forward to hearing the views of the Secretary of State and his Department on this issue.