Mr.
Jackson: I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not
able to speak in last night’s debate in the House on business
rates because we missed his contribution. His argument does not take
account of the very simple fact that the Government seem to have tried
everything to meet the objections of my right hon. Friend the Member
for Skipton and Ripon regarding true local democracy. It is hard to
recognise the north-east of England as the ultra-Thatcherite wing of
the British people, but they had this debate in 2004. They discussed
the whole idea of regional government and comprehensively rejected it.
The Government are now inching towards some kind of compromise, but it
will not work.
Mr.
Raynsford: I was much involved in that saga in the
north-east. On another occasion, when there is time, I will give a full
account of the reasons for the no vote. It was more complex than either
of the views of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the
hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. The particular formulation put
at that time, and the circumstances of the time, explain why the
north-east voted strongly no. It was not a rejection of regional
government per se, however, because, as the right hon. Member for
Skipton and Ripon recognises, there are important matters that need to
be dealt with at a level between the national and the local. Apart from
in London, where there was a decisive yes vote for a city-wide
authority—to all intents and purposes a regional authority for
London—there is no such mechanism in the
country. A
search for an appropriate solution is right. As I was illustrating, the
response of 4NW in the north-west seems to be an eminently practical
and pragmatic approach by the political leaders in that region to make
things work. I believe that it deserves our support. I am delighted
that they are approaching the matter in such a positive and inclusive
way. I commend their approach, and in particular support the
Government’s persistence in recognising that the issue will not
go away and has to be dealt with. We must find practical ways to ensure
that those things that have to be decided between the national and
local levels are decided through an appropriate
framework.
The
Chairman: Order. Before we continue with our debate on
clause 68, I wish to read something into the record concerning the
point that the hon. Member for Eccles asked the Minister to respond to.
I was not privy to a conversation that the hon. Member for Eccles had
with our excellent Clerk—this is a get-out clause—but I
was slightly confused when the hon. Gentleman moved from talking about
consultations to reviews. The main point that he clearly came on to was
entirely to do with clause 71. Quite what the Chair will do about that,
I am delighted to say, will be for my co-Chair, Mr. Eric
Illsley, to decide about later. I thought that I should put the matter
straight. We are debating clause 68 stand
part.
Ms
Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Amess. Perhaps I
ought to be absolutely clear with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles,
because he raised some very important points about the relationship
with transport authorities. With your permission, I suggest that I
address the majority of those points a little later when we come to
part
6.
The
Chairman: Order. I think that there was a misunderstanding
between the hon. Member for Eccles and the Clerk. The Minister is
entirely in order with how she intends to deal with the
matter.
Ian
Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I am
sorry to hold the Minister up but, for my information, I take it that I
shall not need to speak again
later.
The
Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is entirely
right.
Ms
Winterton: I am sure that such a brilliant contribution
would be worth hearing twice anyway. I assure my hon. Friend that we
shall come back to
that. I
agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich
that the debate has been interesting. It has shown the clear dividing
lines between what we are trying to do as a Government to support
economic development at national, regional and local levels, and the
attitude of the Conservative party, which seems to be to ignore
completely evidence about the need for intervention and strategic
planning at the regional level. Conservative Members’ objections
were, frankly, exposed as purely ideological and nothing to do with
recognising that it is vital that the measures that we are taking are
put into place, especially given the focus on the economic downturn. It
was disappointing that the Liberal Democrats could not even make up
their minds about what it was that they were trying to do, and just
ended up saying, “Well, we sort of think that we might quite
like this, but actually let us vote with the Conservatives and put an
end to the real measures that we are trying to take in this
Bill.”
The
Chairman: Order. For clarity, given that there was some
confusion on Thursday and we have discovered another printing error,
the Committee will definitely sit at Thursday morning at 9
o’clock. Hon. Members should also be reassured that they can
leave their papers in the room, because the door will be locked. The
Committee stands adjourned until 4.30
pm. 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at half-past Four
o’clock.
| 
