Julia
Goldsworthy: I am not entirely sure whether I would call
my remarks a peroration, but I hope that they add something to the
debate this evening. I would like to return to a comment that I made
earlier today about drawing a distinction. Although I should say at the
outset that we broadly support what the amendment and the new clause
seek to achieve, it is important to draw the distinction between
delegating functions and devolving decisions. If anything, we would
like the proposals to go further and not only pass down functions to a
lower level, but give greater discretion in the decisions that are
taken, not simply delivering Government policy at a lower
level.
I like the
fact that the amendment and the new clause provide us with probably the
only opportunity in the discussion so far to talk about devolution and
the delegation of functions as a process rather than simply an event.
Many of the provisions about petitions involve setting up not only an
immovable structure that will be exactly the same in the future but the
framework through which it will be necessary to view all future events.
There should be a process. Every six months, there should be reviews to
discover what else could be passed down. That is another aspect that
gives the proposals merits.
The hon.
Gentleman called my hon. Friend and myself Cornish crusaders. I would
like to think that the Liberal Democrats are not crusading for
Cornwall, but across the country. May I be parochial for just a moment
to elucidate something that will be a great benefit? Although in
earlier debates, the Minister dismissed Cornwall’s appetite for
some kind of greater representation and recognition as a region in its
own right, the proposals would, if the Government accepted them, give
people in Cornwall an opportunity to satisfy that appetite—to
pass down decision making and the administration of important things
such as objective 1 funding and its successor programme, Convergence.
That would provide an opportunity to administer those funds at a much
more sensible level. At present, Convergence is administered at a
regional level, even though the resources are only available to people
in Cornwall. That seems to create a ridiculous situation: the
allocation of those funds and
the decisions about which projects should go ahead are affected by other
problems that the RDA is experiencing. If those powers and resources
were devolved to Cornwall, it would make much more sense for those
decisions to be made there. That is a practical example of how the
proposals could make a real difference. I see nothing
controversial in the proposals. This is a good opportunity to
demonstrate that the Government are willing to engage in the process,
rather than simply produce a Bill. I hope that they will consider
supporting the
proposals.
Ms
Winterton: I am sure that the LGA will be delighted to
know that it has now been called a panjandrum, or whatever phrase was
used by Opposition Members, who are excelling themselves today in
insults to local councillors. Labour Members are full of praise for the
work that councillors
do.
Dan
Rogerson: Not parish councillors,
though.
Ms
Winterton: Parish councillors have come in for further
abuse from some Opposition Members. However, we have been considering
how councillors can contribute at both local authority and regional
levels to increase economic prosperity in their
regions. The
key to our discussions on the new clause is the partnership work that
we envisage, regarding the regional development agencies’
overall strategy, drawn up in consultation and discussion with the
leaders’ boards, which represent the local authorities. That
will ensure that RDAs and local authorities work together closely in
planning and implementing the regional strategy. We must also ensure
that local authorities’ economic strategies contribute to the
region’s overall economic
prosperity. Financial
assistance could be given to local authorities. We could probably all
point to examples within our regions of how RDAs have worked very
closely with local authorities on such issues. However, RDA’s
cannot delegate decision making on where finances are directed, and it
is important that RDAs retain the final accountability for funding
passed through them. I hope that I can offer the Opposition enough
comfort for them not press the amendment or the new clause. We want to
ensure close partnerships, and we certainly accept that, in some
instances, financial assistance might be given to local authorities.
However, we do not believe that it is right to delegate decision-making
powers, as set out in the amendment and new
clause.
Mr.
Jackson: I thought that we would see the sinner repenting
over the new clause—I was full of hope, but it is now dashed! We
had an opportunity to recognise the reality of the situation. The
Government have given a written commitment on this matter. Also, in its
submission to the sub-national review, One North East mentioned the
delegation of functions to, among other things, special purpose
vehicles, economic development companies and urban regeneration
companies. In practical terms, there is that recognition among
organisations such as the East Midlands Development Agency, which,
according to evidence that it gave, has devolved 43 per cent. of its
budget to local authorities. It would have been nice if the Government
had recognised that progress, following the sub-national review, and
formalised it by accepting
our amendments, and I am sorry that the Minister has not done so. On
that basis, we cannot support the clause.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
8.
Division
No.
50] Question
accordingly negatived.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
5.
Division
No.
51] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 80
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
81Guidance
and
directions 6.45
pm Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
7.
Division
No.
52] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause
81 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
82Consequential
provision Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
7.
Division
No.
53] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause
82 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
5Regional
strategy:
amendments Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Fifth schedule to the
Bill. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
7.
Division
No.
54] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 5
agreed
to. Clauses
83 and 84 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
