The
Chairman: Before we debate clause 67 stand part, I remind
Members that although this is a key clause, most of the issues have
been explored. I ask those who wish to contribute to make their remarks
brief.
Mr.
Jackson: I will be brief, Mr. Amess. You have
been remarkably flexible in allowing the debates that we have had to
take
place. I
do not think that the Minister has made a comprehensive case for the
clause. Many of the concerns that we have expressed have been
dismissed, particularly about the lack of plurality of delivery for
regional development agencies. We are not minded to support her
arguments on the specific point about sustainability or on the point
that I raised earlier about the failure of imagination to progress from
the sub-national review in 2007 and listen to what local people were
saying. It was not necessary or appropriate to disband the regional
assemblies, with their stakeholders and directly elected local
councillors. The Government had a great opportunity at that stage to
build on the success that they had achieved, to a certain extent, with
the regional
assemblies. The
Minister also failed to make a coherent case for the added value that
she claims regional development agencies have made. We could parry
figures across the Committee as to whether they really have added
value. A similar period before they were established in 1999 suggests
that they have not greatly added value, given the huge amount of money
spent on them. In our document, “Control Shift”,
published in February, we made clear our view on regional strategies.
We are not saying that we have all the answers, but the premise of our
well-established policy involves both giving more power to local
authorities and encouraging them to
work around their natural economic and social demographic affinities. On
that basis—I hope that we will have the support of the Liberal
Democrats—we will vote against the clause in its
entirety. Dan
Rogerson: In responding to what the hon. Member for
Peterborough said about his party’s vision, my concern is that
the proposals outlined by the Conservatives contain no provision for
more institutionalised regional co-operation, even if people in those
regions believe it appropriate. Perhaps unusually, we find ourselves
sitting between the other parties. The Government’s view is that
the regions are right, and that that is the way forward; the
Conservative party’s view is that regional government is
altogether a bad thing. In our view, regional government may be
appropriate for a particular area, and the people living there may be
convinced that it is the right model for them. However, regional
government should be able to develop far more organically than being
imposed from the centre.
My party does
not have a problem with the concept of regional planning, but the
clause uses the existing regional boundaries, which is a problem. I am
expected to return to my electorate and tell them that the regional
spatial strategy process has been a success and has met with such
universal approval that the model will be developed, and that we shall
look at all sorts of other issues in a new all-singing, all-dancing
regional strategy. I believe that my constituents would laugh in my
face, which is why I cannot support the
clause.
Ms
Winterton: That is a glaring example of the Lib-Dems
sitting on the fence. They do not want to make a decision. The official
Opposition are at least saying that they do not believe in the idea of
any kind of regional intervention. That fits their overall strategy,
which is that nothing can be done during these difficult economic
times, that public intervention is not the right approach, and that we
should sit back and let things take their course; they have no idea of
the key role of Government and local government in ensuring a good,
well-thought out strategy for the future or of what it could do for the
economy.
The
traditional position that the Conservatives have adopted is a return to
the free-market economics that let people down in previous economically
difficult times. The Liberal Democrats simply cannot make up their
minds. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment, as it is
incredibly important to the country’s future.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
35]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 67
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
68Leaders’
boards
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 102, in
clause 68, page 51, line 3, leave
out ‘must’ and insert
‘may’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 103, in clause 68, page 51, line 4, after second
‘a’, insert
‘representative’. Amendment
104, in
clause 68, page 51, line 5, leave
out ‘(whether or not
incorporated)’.
Dan
Rogerson: As the hon. Member for Wycombe said
earlier, we return to a continuing theme. As we move through the Bill,
many of our debates will relate to the same theme. I was intrigued to
hear the Minister describe any position between defending the existing
regions as they stand and having no regions as sitting on the fence, as
if there can be no middle ground between those two
views.
Ms
Winterton: It is very easy to describe it that
way.
Dan
Rogerson: The Government’s position is now on the
record, and I am sure that it will be evaluated by all. No regional
policy can move forward along any other line than that relating to the
boundaries that were set fairly arbitrarily a decade or so
ago. Similarly,
we now move on to a discussion about leaders’ boards that began
briefly on our last amendment to the previous clause. The issue is
whether leaders’ boards represent the appropriate mechanism for
all areas of the country to have input into any emerging regional
policy, or strategy. On reading the Bill, our view is that saying that
a leaders’ board must be the way to go for everybody is too
prescriptive. That is why we suggest taking out the word
“must” and inserting the word “may” in its
place. There might well be other ways in which we can have a
representative element to considering regional policy that would work
alongside the regional development agency, interact with it and
reassure people that elected representatives have a say in what the
policy is. To that end, I am happy to move amendment 102, which seeks
to allow greater flexibility in determining what the democratic
arrangements should be in terms of moving forward with regional
policy.
Mr.
Jackson: I will be extremely brief because I am speaking
only to this particular amendment and will make substantive comments on
the clause later during the stand-part debate. We are inclined to
support the amendment because generally the powers contained in the
clause are too draconian, too sweeping, take insufficient account of
the role of local authorities and give way too much power to the
Secretary of State. On that basis, “may” instead of
“must” is the correct way
forward.
Ms
Winterton: I urge the Committee to reject the amendment
because it is important that people are able to see the arrangements
that have been put in place for how leaders’ boards are to be
established. It will be for
participating authorities to decide how they wish to organise
themselves, but, as I have said, it is important that people are able
to see what those arrangements are. Having a scheme in place is an
important part of that process as it means that leaders’ boards
will be streamlined and manageable, and that there is clarity about how
participating authorities will work together with the RDAs to fulfil
their duties, including in relation to how they resolve any
differences. That is important because, in a sense, it goes back to the
points that I am sure will be made about how the process takes place
and how people understand it. Without a scheme in place, it is
difficult to see how there would be that transparency. That is why the
amendments are not the right way
forward.
Dan
Rogerson: I hear what the Minister has to say about there
being flexibility for regions to come up with their own arrangements,
but it strikes me that there is freedom for them to come up with their
own arrangements as long as there is some form of leaders’
board. That is a bit like Henry Ford saying that people can have a car
in any colour they want as long as it is black. That is the problem for
us; the measure is too prescriptive. On that basis and given that there
seems to be some support on the Committee for pressing the matter to a
vote, I will seek to do
so. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
36] Question
accordingly negatived.
Dan
Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 105, in
clause 68, page 51, line 6, after
‘is’, insert ‘for the purposes of this
Act’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 106, in clause 68, page 51, line 6, leave out
‘Leaders’ Board’ and insert ‘Responsible
Regional
Authority.’. Amendment
107, in
clause 68, page 51, line 23, leave
out ‘a Leaders’ Board’ and insert ‘the
Responsible Regional
Authority.’. Amendment
108, in
clause 68, page 51, line 24, leave
out ‘Leaders’ Board’ and insert
‘Responsible Regional
Authority.’. Amendment
110, in
clause 68, page 51, line 32, leave
out ‘Leaders’ Board’ and insert ‘the
Responsible Regional
Authority.’.
Dan
Rogerson: Again, the amendments refer to what the
democratic accountability will be within the future regional structure.
Although their aims are the same,
the amendments have two elements. They seek to be less restrictive about
what the democratic oversight should be. The term
“Leaders’ Board” should be replaced throughout the
clause with “the Responsible Regional Authority” and
allow such authorities to be defined as local authorities coming
together to set priorities and draw up regional proposals along the
lines that we discussed—that regions are made up of the local
authorities in the area rather than imposed from above. Therefore,
local authorities need a far stronger role in determining strategy and
policy.
Mr.
Goodman: Does he propose taking the leaders’ board
out of clause 68 due to the Hitchin and Harpenden consideration raised
on Second Reading? He may be more expert than I am, but, as far as I
can tell, nowhere in the Bill are the “leaders” who will
sit on the board defined. Are they local authority leaders or nursery
group leaders? Perhaps the Minister will tell
us.
Dan
Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point
and, indeed, what mechanisms determine how many representatives of
districts, for example, there are in two-tier areas? That also remains
to be clarified.
The second
element to the amendments is removing the regional development agency
from who the responsible regional authorities are. The regional
development agency should be more of a delivery arm for regional
strategy than a body equal to local authorities in determining what
that regional strategy should be. That is the approach that my party
would take. Those who take decisions about spending large amounts of
money and drafting strategy ought to be democratically accountable.
People employed through the regional development agency are there to
deliver that strategy and ensure that that vision becomes a reality,
rather than be on an equal footing.
Mr.
Jackson: We are not minded to support the Liberal Democrat
amendments because they are not sufficiently robust and do not further
our knowledge of how the clause would work in practice. In fact, they
go against the Liberal Democrat protestations about wishing to focus
primarily on a bottom-up process. The leaders’ board is an
imperfect system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe made clear,
and we will debate that in detail in the clause stand part debate,
However, surely replacing the leaders’ boards is better than the
opaque concept of a regional body, notwithstanding the problem that too
much power may be vested in, for instance, one or two individuals in a
local authority or in all the local authorities in the south-west.
Therefore, we do not feel disposed to support the amendment and will
have plenty to say about particular aspects of the clause in the clause
stand part debate.
Ms
Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Will
you give me some guidance on whether we are also addressing amendment
110? I am not sure that it was referred to, or
moved.
|
