| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.57 pm
Mrs. Spelman: We cannot reach the end of the debate without again expressing our great disappointment at the way in which the Government have consistently rebuffed all our efforts to seek amendments that would protect rural interests. The Opposition have repeatedly drawn attention to those concerns, but all our efforts to have them considered have been ignored.
I make a final request to the Government. I ask them to hear our argument that, as rural Britain faces a fast-growing crisis, they will live to regret the contempt in which they have held the strength of feeling behind our amendments. The regional development agencies, which will be urban dominated, show very little consideration for the minority position in which the rural representatives will find themselves. The Government's proposal that only one of 12 members of each board should reflect rural interests is nothing more than tokenism, and a poor response to the ever-increasing crisis that confronts British agriculture in the wider rural economy. That has been consistently ignored by the Government through all the stages of the Bill. The new clauses moved this evening, which offered one last chance for proper consideration to be given to those rural interests, have once again been rejected.
Mr. Lansley:
Is it not a further disappointment that, at this late stage of the Bill, the Government took no opportunity to introduce amendments that would have safeguarded some of the functions of the Rural Development Commission, in particular some of its research and analytical functions? Ministers have been happy to draw on those in recent weeks, but do not seem to be prepared to protect the sources from which such valuable information comes.
Mrs. Spelman:
I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, the debate has revealed that some of the functions of the Rural Development Commission will be lost into the ether. With the passage of the Bill, rural interests will be less well represented. I fear that the Government will find themselves in an impossible position. The Secretary of State will have to direct and guide the boards to resolve the tensions between urban and rural areas.
Mr. Pickles:
The position is worse than that. Those in rural areas will not be able to know what is going on, as members of the public will have no right to attend meetings of the board.
Mrs. Spelman:
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It reveals the lack of openness in the newly generated RDAs, which will compound the gathering crisis in agriculture.
The Government climbdown on planning powers was significant. It would have been too easy for the new RDAs to take advantage of failing farms, and of land becoming available as agriculture slides further into crisis. Opposition pressure in Committee forced the Government to withdraw a clause that would have given RDAs the power to grant themselves change of land use.
We hope that the debate will bring some concessions for rural areas. The other amendments that we tabled would have protected the interests of local government, by recognising that it was unacceptable to transfer powers away in a thoroughly undemocratic fashion.
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster, Central):
I was proud to serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, especially under the distinguished leadership of my hon. Friends the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I know that the Bill will bring great benefit to my area. I was proud to witness the historic occasion in Hull on Friday last week when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the country's first regional chamber, that for Yorkshire and Humberside. The launch was attended by representatives of all political parties, including the Conservative party. I was astonished by the contribution of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), which showed how out of touch Conservative Members are with their rank and file.
The establishment of a regional development agency will bring considerable benefit to the people I represent in Doncaster, Central. The decline of the traditional industries of coal, engineering and rail means that Doncaster badly needs regeneration assistance. Although it has suffered from industrial decline, the town has tremendous potential. There are strong arguments for locating the RDA's headquarters in Doncaster.
Doncaster is a transport hub, with excellent road and rail links to the north, the south, the east and the west. It is a gateway to the region. Through the Humber ports, it has easy access to Europe, and there is now a direct rail link to Europe through the railport. In addition, there are proposals to reopen the Royal Air Force base at Finningley as an airport, which would be a great attraction for inward investment. That is an issue which has already been identified in the annex to the regional development agencies White Paper.
English Partnerships' northern office is already situated in Doncaster. Its staff will be transferred to the RDA, and I believe that that is why we should see the RDAs' headquarters located in Doncaster.
Mr. Yeo:
We have had a valuable Third Reading debate, which was opened with characteristic bluster by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, whose case was rapidly and entirely demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) criticised the undemocratic nature of regional development agencies, and then said that he would support the Bill. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) criticised the qualified nature of the Bill's commitment to sustainable development, and then said that her party would support the Bill.
Of those who spoke on Third Reading, only my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who criticised the Bill, appeared to have the courage of his convictions in saying that he would vote against it. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) had the chance to expose the failure of the Bill to address the real concerns that exist in rural areas.
There are two abiding themes to the Bill. The first is that it is a centralising measure. It pulls power after power back to the office of the Secretary of State. It is the Secretary of State who appoints the boards, who determines the pay of their members, and determines their pay-offs. It is the Secretary of State who decides the budget, dictates the strategy, chooses the regional chamber, controls the borrowing, and tells the agencies how to keep their accounts. The Secretary of State will decide when they will publish their annual reports, and he will even dictate the form in which the notice of the annual meeting should be drawn up. He will direct how that meeting should be conducted.
The list goes on and on. Every decision of any importance to do with RDAs will be taken by the Secretary of State.
The second theme is that the passage of the Bill was notable for the ignominious defeat of the Government's attempt to take planning powers away from elected local authorities. Only the vigilance of the Conservative Opposition prevented that spurious and fundamental threat to the role of local authorities from remaining in the Bill.
Mr. Caborn:
With the leave of the House--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. I hear dissenting voices. As the leave of the House is not being granted, I must put the Question.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |