| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Dec 2002 : Column 911—continued
Mr. Key: Let us discuss that when we debate new clause 3. I promised to be brief so that the Minister can wind up, but it was a perfectly reasonable point.
Unless there is an identifiable region that has legitimacy, the proposal will not work and people will not vote for it. It should not be imposed on them. The counties have legitimacy because they represent the geography, geology, dialect, buildings, architecture, customs and practice, heritage and traditions of a distinct part of our nation. Local government is built on the rock of national identity. In Wiltshire, we call ourselves moonrakers, because of particular events in our history. All that still means something to people today.
I know that modern culture homogenises our nation and that television, in particular, homogenises the western world. However, most of us are busy seeking roots, particularly when the going gets tough and things go wrong. The Government are making a grave mistake in suggesting that we should be forced into a completely phoney and meaningless local government system. The south-west region is a line drawn on a map. Regional government will simply be a castle in the sand that will be swept away by the tide of history.
Mr. Streeter : On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill. Can you advise me as a Back Bencher on how I might proceed? Several Members on both sides of the Chamber rose to speak, and I want to make what I believe to be important points about this group of amendments. However, because of the timetable motion from which we are suffering, I will not be able to make those points. How can I challenge legislation introduced by the Government when they show such contempt for Parliament?
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Butterfill): As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me. The orders of the House clearly prescribe the timetable for this Bill, and I am obliged to conform to them.
Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate around a diverse range of amendments. Many separate issues have come up, including the definition of boundaries, the powers of elected regional assemblies, the reorganisation of local government, the principle of devolution, the extent to which people have absolute clarity when they come to vote in referendums and the importance of choice. I will try to tackle each of those issues while rightly focusing on the amendments before us.
I will start with amendment No. 46, which is the most substantive of the Opposition's amendments. It would insert a new subsection (3) in clause 1, replacing subsections (3) to (8). The new subsection 3(a) would refer to the procedure for determining regional boundaries. It would require that the review of boundaries be undertaken before any order for a referendum could be made. The regions, for the purposes of the Bill, would no longer be those specified in schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Rather a region would become one created by order under new clause 3, but the apparent intention is to exclude Greater London because clause 26 would be retained in the Bill.
That obviously creates a problem for the Opposition. They are arguing for consistency between the number of people in each of the regions. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made a strong point of that in his speech after conceding that the north-east probably was a natural region with a sense of identity and that it probably had an aspiration for regional devolution. If that is so, I ask him how he would achieve the numerical parity that he seeks—let us note that the population of the north-east is 2.5 million whereas that of London is 7.1 million—without a revision of the London boundaries.
Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is going to respond to that point.
Mr. Hammond: I will not address the London issue but, as the Minister knows, new clause 3 says that the commission would have regard to the desirability of the regions being approximately equal. It would also have regard to the need to reflect identities and interests. As we recognised in Standing Committee, there are tensions and there will not be an easy solution, but both factors must be taken into account.
Mr. Raynsford: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is moving away from the preoccupation with numerical parity. That is the argument that he pushed in Standing Committee and in this debate. When he was challenged on that point by Liberal Democrat Members, he stuck firmly to that line. However, I am glad that wisdom is beginning to prevail and that he recognises that regional identity will involve regions of a very different size. One cannot have a one-size-fits-all simple arithmetic formula.
Andrew George: The Minister accepts that one size does not fit all. As he will acknowledge, one region has expressed a greater desire for a regional assembly in the responses that he has received to the consultation exercise. That region is Cornwall, so why have the Government set their face against an assembly for Cornwall? He is denying an assembly to the one region that wants it.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not yet persuaded those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench to agree that Cornwall is a viable region. His party's spokesman was cautious and guarded on that point when I specifically asked him the question. We have
debated the issue with the hon. Gentleman and I have much respect and understanding for the aspirations of the people of Cornwall and for their cultural identity. As he knows, I have recently agreed to recognise the Cornish language, and that is one part of the process. However, we believe that Cornwall is too small an area to be viable as a region with regional powers. That takes us straight to the fundamental point that regions have different functions to counties and districts, which are the traditional local government structures that can best address local issues. The hon. Gentleman may not agree with me, but that is the Government's view.A key aim of elected regional assemblies is to bring under democratic control the work of existing regional bodies. Who would believe from what we heard from the Conservative Opposition that they set up the existing regional structures—the Government offices for the regions—a decade ago and that they are perfectly happy for them to continue? The Government offices are unaccountable and unresponsive to local opinion. They simply answer to Ministers here in Westminster. That is the Conservatives' position; they are opposed to devolution.
Mr. Hammond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raynsford: No, I have very little time. I have given way twice already, so I must press ahead.
The Conservatives oppose devolution and giving people in the English regions the opportunity to govern their own affairs. That is the main charge that I lay against the Conservative Opposition. Our aim is that regional assemblies should be strategic. We want to ensure that the spatial and demographic size of the regions is sufficient to enable them adequately to perform such a role.
The provisions of amendment No. 46 would mean that the Act setting out the powers and functions of elected regional assemblies would have to be in place before a referendum could take place. I hear the argument about clarity and about the importance of people being aware of what they are voting for before they vote in a referendum. We agree entirely on that. That is why we are holding the structural review of local government in those regions where there is an interest. That review will be decided and the Government will make their decision as to whether to carry it forward before people vote in a referendum.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made great play of this issue. He described the process slightly pejoratively as the boundary committee doing calculations on the back of an envelope. It will not be like that. He was a senior Minister in the Government who introduced the 1992 legislation that established the principle of structural reviews, so he will know that they examine the structure of local government and not just the boundaries. The reviews will have a responsibility to produce a wholly unitary structure, determining exactly how the responsibilities that he described will be discharged. That information will be available to people in the regions before they vote, as will a statement from the Government, based on our White Paper, setting out what powers the elected regional assembly would have.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that the whole process was worthless because it contained no powers. He was a former
housing Minister, so he will be aware of the housing capital allocations made to registered social landlords and local authorities. Those powers will rest with the elected regional assemblies. Is that worthless? The right hon. Gentleman very much underestimates the measure's significance.
Mr. Clelland: My right hon. Friend mentioned the powers. He will recall that I asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago about the suitability of a draft Bill for the regional government legislation. Labour Members have made that point twice in the debate. Does he not think that, in view of the new systems of examining legislation, a draft Bill would be appropriate in this case?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |