Jim
Knight: Clearly, the legal challenge in the east of
England has caused a problem with progressing the regional spatial
strategy. I share the Committee’s impatience for us to be able
to proceed. I shall continue discussions with the Department for
Communities and Local Government about securing a timetable and making
sure that we can get on with the delivery of the RSS. In the meantime,
some good consultation has taken place, and our problems with the RSS
should not stall local authorities from being able to proceed with
their local development frameworks and being informed by the work that
has already been done on the
RSS.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: I opposed the establishment of RSSs on
behalf of the Opposition on the grounds that they are undemocratic, as
my neighbour the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) said, and that
planning should be controlled as much as possible by local people and
local councils. Is not the proof of the pudding in what RSSs can
deliver? Is not the fact that we are 4,400 homes short of the target of
10,000 affordable homes demonstrable proof that the RSS planning system
does not work? It causes misery for people on the ground. The
south-west has a record waiting list of 160,000, and that is misery for
the people on the list. What can the
Minister do to ensure that the RSS, for as long as it
exists—Conservatives would abolish it—delivers for people
on the
ground?
Jim
Knight: There are a number of responses to that. I do not
want to take lessons from the hon. Gentleman on the deliverability of
affordable housing. I will be interested to hear during the following
debate whether he will come forward with pledges to spend more than the
£7.5 billion that we are spending on affordable housing during
the next two
years. It
is important that there is a regional dimension to land use planning.
We have heard about the relationship between some of our urban and
rural areas. That must be accounted for, and allowing local authorities
to do so in isolation would mean that we would not achieve the
joined-up land use planning that the region
demands.
Mr.
Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Key. I am sure
that we all want this Committee to be an effective forum for the region
and a place for us to ask questions of the regional Minister. However,
the timing, place and agenda of this sitting were all determined by the
Government—a Government representing the party that comes third
in this region—without consultation. If we are to make the
Committee a success, would it not be more appropriate to have a more
consensual and regional approach? I suggest—perhaps you can tell
me if it is possible, Mr. Key—that we ought to
establish a business sub-committee of this Committee to consider future
business, timing and meeting venues so that we can all be involved and
ensure that the Committee discusses the matters that it ought
to.
Mr.
Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Key.
There is a particular peculiarity in the debate in which we are about
to engage. The motion before the Committee is to discuss a report
produced by a Select Committee that both the Conservative party and the
Liberal Democrats have declared to be worthless and on which we do not
serve. The report that we are about to debate was produced entirely by
the Labour party. It is a Government report. I have not even seen it or
heard about it; I do not know anything about it. If the Committee is to
represent the south-west of England—although that is
questionable—surely we should be discussing something that all
parties can subscribe to, not simply a Labour party
document.
Mr.
Steen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Key.
All these points of order are extremely important. Perhaps we need a
sub-committee to discuss points of order. The problem with this
Committee is that it meets for two and a half hours at the enormous
administrative expense of getting us all down here. We have Parliament
to do such things. Perhaps we should set up a Grand Committee that meets
down here permanently. There are many options. Having further
sub-committees to discuss such matters is absurd, as well as costly and
time-consuming. I think that what the public will get from the
Committee is a taste of what Parliament is like, but not too
much.
The
Chairman: Order. I am relieved to be able to say that it
is not a matter that I can determine from the Chair this morning.
However, those on the Treasury Bench have heard what has been said, and
it will be duly recorded in Hansard for others to consider on a
future occasion.
Richard
Younger-Ross: On a different point of order,
Mr. Key. What representations have you had on televising
this Grand Committee, as it is the first? If it were sitting in
Westminster, I am sure that it would be televised, but as we are in
Exeter, in glorious Devon, it appears not to
be.
The
Chairman: I understand that there were discussions with
various broadcasting authorities and companies in both television and
radio, but we have yet to prove ourselves as a Regional Grand
Committee. As they will all be missing the fact that they are not
televising the Committee live, I have no doubt that we can hope for
something in the future.
Mr.
Steen: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Key.
The
Chairman: I call Sir
Anthony— [Interruption.] Mr.
Steen.
Mr.
Steen: May I make representations to you, Mr.
Key, which the Minister will hear, that the next regional Committee
meeting should be in
Totnes?
The
Chairman: Those on the Treasury Bench will have
heard the hon. Gentleman’s
suggestion.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: Further to that point of order,
Mr.
Key.
The
Chairman: No, I will not take any further points of
order.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown: It is
important.
The
Chairman: I am sure that it is a very important point of
order, but perhaps it can be made during the course of the hon.
Gentleman’s speech. We must move on to the main
debate.
Economic Downturn
(Unemployment)[Relevant
documents: The First Report from the South West Regional Select
Committee, Session 2008-09, on Impact of the economic downturn on the
South West and the Government’s response, HC
392-I.] 11.22
am
The
Minister for the South West (Jim Knight): I beg to
move, That
the Committee has considered the matter of the response to the economic
downturn: tackling
unemployment. I
should like to reiterate my welcome to the first Regional Grand
Committee not just in the south-west but in the whole of England. As
always, it is a pleasure for the south-west to be a trail-blazer. I
should like to add my thanks to Devon county council for
agreeing to host us here in Exeter. This is an historic day.
The Grand Committee is an opportunity for all MPs in the south-west to
get together to talk about their local regions, and the things that
matter to the people in their constituencies and to ensure that those
concerns are heard. Right now there is no greater concern than the
effect of the current global economic recession, which we are about to
debate.
Grand
Committees are a fantastic opportunity for the people of the south-west
to hold both central Government and me as a regional Minister to
account, to scrutinise national policies, to assess their regional
impact and to tell Government through their representatives here what
more they can do for the south-west.
When the right
hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was in
Government, he developed the system of regional Government offices to
help co-ordinate Government action on the basis of
subsidiarity—a concept much in vogue at the time. The regional
MPs have the opportunity to hold a regional Minister to account for the
work of those Government offices set up by the Conservative Government,
and this Committee is a great forum for doing
so.
Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): As the Minister will
be aware, I was special adviser to my right hon. Friend when he took
that decision, and according to my memory it was taken purely for the
delivery of Government service. At the time, there were 10
or 12 different Government offices across the region and it
was believed that it would be much more efficient and cheaper to
operate from one office. That body simply delivered central Government
services; it took no decisions about those services. It was not a
democratic or regional body; it was merely a Government delivery
office. What we are seeing today, and what the Labour Government are
all in favour of, is a regional decision-making process, which is quite
different and something that we on the Conservative Benches
abhor.
Jim
Knight: As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member
for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), the compelling reason for
having regional structures is so that we can co-ordinate and deliver
the city region model. The great cities of our region, the conurbations
of Bournemouth and Poole, Plymouth, Bristol and Swindon, have
significant influence on their surrounding rural and semi-rural areas.
We miss a trick in such places if we deliver services only as
Government in Whitehall or as local
authorities. We need a process that is somewhere in between, but it must
be accountable. The regional Minister, the Regional Select Committee
and the Regional Grand Committee allow for that
accountability. I
was delighted to be appointed Minister for this region. I have lived in
three of the region’s counties, been elected in two of them and
worked for a number of years in a fourth county of the region.
Geographically, this is the largest of the English regions, stretching
from Swindon to the Isles of Scilly. The distance from Tewkesbury to
Land’s End is as far as from Tewkesbury to Scotland.
Dan
Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): The Minister made a couple
of important points about the nature of what my hon. Friend the Member
for St. Ives called the Government zones for the south-west. As the
Minister gets to grips with his responsibilities across that vast area,
does he feel that it makes sense as a region? Given that the zones were
established as Government delivery offices in the past, is it not time
to conduct a review of the regions if we are to have a form of regional
structure?
Jim
Knight: My experience in elected office and public life
has suggested that whenever we have debates about boundaries there is a
lot of heat and not a lot of light. People on the edges of regions are
left wondering whether they are on the right side of the boundary. I
know that the hon. Gentleman is part of a campaign to establish
Cornwall as its own region and that he has tabled a private
Member’s Bill for that purpose. However, I struggle to support
that idea for fear that we would end up with so many regional Ministers
and Regional Grand Committees that I am not sure that that would be
viable. I am obviously pleased that Cornwall now has a unitary
authority in order to be able to join things up a little more
effectively.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): Will the Minister give
way?
Jim
Knight: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman even though
I fear that we are going to end up having a debate about a region for
Cornwall.
Andrew
George: Absolutely not, but the Minister appears to hold
the view that if he were to accede to a reasonable request from
Cornwall for greater recognition of its own status, other areas within
the south-west Government zone may make similar requests. Have any such
requests been
made?
Jim
Knight: I am not aware of other areas of the south-west
wanting to be their own regions, but we have heard today that there are
some areas in parts of the south-west that are not sure whether they
are in the right region. A review of the regional boundaries would open
all that up to countless debates. I believe that we are becoming
settled as a region. We have a good regional identity. We have some
common issues that I will go on to talk about, such as our creative
strengths, the bedrock of our industrial base, such as defence,
agriculture, fishing, and tourism. Many of the issues that I look at in
respect of Cornwall are also common to parts of Devon, Somerset and
Dorset and it is useful to think of them in the context of the
region.
We have spent a
lot of time today discussing the A303, which passes through a large
part of the region. Having those discussions as a region and making
representations as a region is a good thing. We have also been able to
deliver well for Cornwall in term of achieving objective 1 status by
changing the way that the EU looks at Devon and Cornwall. By splitting
them off and opting for convergence funding, significant investment is
coming into
Cornwall. Richard
Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): I thank the Minister for
being very generous in giving way. I agree that Cornwall has
similarities with Devon and Somerset, but the dilemma that confronts us
is that the region is divided into two—one is the south-west and
the other is the area around Bristol, which links to the M4 corridor
towards London. The difference lies in how the south-west faces its
problems as opposed to how the area around Bristol going down to Dorset
does so. They are two distinct areas with distinct problems. While we
may not want to review all the boundaries, it would make a lot of sense
to cut the south-west in two to create two
regions.
Jim
Knight: I am not sure that I agree. When I look at the
market town communities of Dorset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire,
Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, I see many similarities—a regional
character and a branding of the region that is successful for
south-west tourism. We all have in common our dependency on the tourism
economy to some extent—we have been depending on it quite a lot
this summer. Despite our differences, there is a lot that we can
achieve together and we all share a desire for good jobs, good schools
and good hospitals.
My task as
regional Minister is clear: to champion the south-west, to make sure
that the world knows our talents, to make the most of our resources,
and encourage new business and new jobs. At the moment my top priority
is helping the families and businesses in the south-west to survive the
recession. As a result of the biggest global recession for 60 years,
people’s jobs and livelihoods have been affected and we need to
fight back. Unlike the party opposite—in this chamber perhaps I
should say at 160°—we do not believe that unemployment is
a price worth paying. That is why we have taken action to support
people who lose their jobs to get back into work as quickly as
possible.
That means
doing everything we can to support our existing businesses and to
attract new industry—to not just survive the recession but to
thrive post-recession. That is why the Government introduced a range of
measures to help businesses survive the downturn and come through it in
a stronger shape. Those measures range from actions to ensure
businesses get the finance that they need by establishing the
enterprise finance guarantee, for example, through to helping
businesses with tax bill payment issues and providing them with a
business link health check that is helping many of
them. In
my role as chair of the regional economic task group, I have been
working with agencies throughout the south-west to deal with the impact
of the recession, particularly on employment and
skills.
Mr.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): The Minister has
made great play this morning of the fact that he chairs the economic
task force, but one of the key representations that has been made to me
as the
constituency Member of Parliament by businesses during the downward turn
is that they have not been able to get sufficient credit from the
banks. The Government have announced seven key schemes to help
businesses during the recession, the main one of which was announced by
the Chancellor in the Budget of £5 billion in respect of the
trade credit scheme to give businesses more trade credit. On 1 May
2009, the Financial Times described the take-up of the scheme as
“paltry”. Only £7 million out of £5 billion
is being given to 52 businesses. What representations has the regional
Minister, as chairman of the task force, made to his right hon. Friend
the Chancellor that the scheme is simply not
working?
| 
