| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear to the House that we recognise the problem of competition between the different areas, but, in establishing the English regions, we are not declaring for a federal United Kingdom. The English regions constitute England, and there is Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. There will be a certain amount of competition between the bodies and we want a level playing field. However, in the early stages of the development--perhaps towards regional government, if that is the evolutionary change towards which we are moving--each body will be represented in the Cabinet by the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I am happy to represent the English regions.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): I congratulate my right hon. Friend. I remember his passion for regional government when I worked for him many years ago and I know that the report is based on good homework. But can the emphasis in the regional development agencies be on growth from within, not just the panacea of attracting industry from without? If we have the right focus, we can develop our regions, with all their talents and skills, from within. Yorkshire and Humberside, the region which I and my right hon. Friend share, is in the front.
Can we seriously reconsider having regional Select Committees, because that would add to the power of the House and the regional development agencies? Can we also consider the prime role which could be played by regional investment banks, which would not cost a lot of money?
Mr. Prescott:
I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments about the regional Select Committees to the appropriate authorities, but that is a matter for the House.
I have always strongly believed in the development of the indigenous economies. In the alternative regional strategy document produced in the 1980s, I was highly critical of regional policy, which was largely about attracting inward investment instead of developing the potential of the local and regional economies. The regional development agencies will do precisely that. They will look at the differences within the regions and exploit their assets and potential by bringing together the various partners. I hope and believe that one of the essential roles of the development agencies will be to consider how to develop the local and regional economies and investment within those areas.
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton):
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the success of the Scottish,
The new agencies will not receive the blessing from the Treasury that the others did. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as a result, instead of creating a level playing field he will be doing exactly the opposite and the regions will compete one against the other? Furthermore, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency informal and voluntary partnerships are working together successfully, and the interests of Congleton in Cheshire are not the interests of Lancashire?
Mr. Prescott:
There is no doubt that there are sub-regional parts of an economy that cannot be centralised in a region and one cannot assume that there is one pattern for all the regions. Anyone who knows our English regions, with their industrial and rural make-up, knows that they vary from one end to the other. Therefore, we must be flexible and adjust to that. That is why we want a regional body rather than a Whitehall organisation.
The subsidies given to Scotland and Wales reflected the high levels of unemployment when the agencies were established. The agencies were one way of responding to that. But after 18 years of a Tory Government, all regions of the United Kingdom have mass unemployment. [Interruption.] They had the record of creating more than 1 million unemployed in the south. Some of my northern colleagues found it hard to believe that there was mass unemployment in the south. But that is why we needed a national solution rather than a regional one. Therefore, the subsidies reflected the higher levels of unemployment in those areas. Now we must consider how to develop all the English regions and ensure that we provide subsidies and support where necessary on a level playing field, and we intend to do that.
Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan):
My right hon. Friend has been involved with this issue for a substantial number of years and I congratulate him on his statement. I make one small plea. If he has any influence regarding the location of the headquarters of the regional development agencies, I remind him that we have a wonderful place called Wigan, which he and the Minister for the regions have visited several times, and I would offer him an office at the end of the pier if he would consider it.
Mr. Prescott:
I remember that I enjoyed the visit to Wigan pier and to the school that is on it, but I cannot give my hon. Friend any assurances about the location of the regional headquarters. Indeed, it would be wrong for a central Government official or a Minister to take what is essentially a decision to be taken in the regions.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury):
The Deputy Prime Minister said that part of the reason for making these changes was to decentralise decision making, but in so far as those bodies will take any decisions, they will be undemocratic decisions because those bodies are unelected, unaccountable quangos.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the proposals lack coherence and will fracture the United Kingdom, in that a town such as Banbury will be lumped in with counties such as Kent and Sussex, notwithstanding the fact that the west midlands is only a few miles up the
road to the north and the east midlands a few miles to the east? That will mean that, on every map throughout the country, towns such as Banbury will be marginalised. I must tell the Deputy Prime Minister that Banbury will refuse to be marginalised in that way.
Mr. Prescott:
One envisages UDI for Banbury. We shall wait and see whether the people of Banbury agree with that.
The main argument, about democratic accountability, comes ill from a Government who abolished more democratically accountable bodies, established more quangos than anyone else and abolished the Greater London authority--the Greater London council--which we are now reintroducing because it is necessary for democratic accountability.
It is inevitable that the development agencies are part of an evolutionary movement towards democratic accountability, but we do not want to wait for legislation to be passed, which would take a long time. We believe that the English regions need the economic instruments, such as the development agencies, to get on with the job now. Each development agency would be accountable to authorities in the area--admittedly, indirectly, but that is better than nothing, which is what the regions had under 18 years of Tory Governments.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg (City of Durham):
As a Member from the northern region, hon. Members from which have been among the main instigators of regional government for the past 20 years, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on his statement. We deeply approve of it and strongly support him. Regional assemblies are a wonderful thing as a first step, but will my right hon. Friend give us an idea of when the Government will move towards democratically elected regional assemblies, which is our ultimate aim in the northern region of England?
Mr. Prescott:
I certainly understand my hon. Friend's point regarding regional assemblies as an alternative to democratically elected bodies. I have a preference--I think all parliamentarians would--for democratically elected bodies.
There are arguments about whether all regions want regional government, but I believe that they eventually will if they do not at present. If we decide that we want to achieve any form of regional government, we need only consider the structure of local government to realise how many questions arise. If one wants to make the change to regional government, with unitary authorities, it begs the question of the role and structure of local government. Will there be unitary authorities? Will there be county councils? Will there be regional government?
Anyone with experience of entering into such issues knows that the discussion process takes one or two years, quite apart from what is usually a controversial progress through the legislative process. That is why we have said that it would be difficult to envisage achieving that structure in the remainder of this Parliament. That is not to say that we shall not give active encouragement, especially in the northern areas, where there are well-developed bodies of accountability, which may be
able to provide a model for us until we achieve the final objective, which I believe should be a form of regional government.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is proposing an extraordinary duplication of functions for London? He said that the London development agency will be responsible for inward investment, transport and planning, all of which, according to the Minister for London during the passage of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, are functions which will be undertaken by the Greater London Authority.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |