Clause 43.—(RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.) (Hansard, 17 January 1967)

§ Mr. Peter Mills
I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 47, line 31, to leave out "or needs".
This Amendment is to make it clear that I do not think that there is any need for this type of development board 309 in this country. Speaking as a Conservative, I am highly critical of these boards and of this type of Government interference. Perhaps the need for these development boards can be proven in Scotland because of the depopulation which, for various reasons, has occurred there and because of Scotland's particular problems. I do not think it is necessary to have the development boards in the rest of the country. I am much opposed to any furtherance of this type of Government interference. To me it is just another expansion of Socialism. It will mean more civil servants, more people telling others what to do, more jobs with sweeping powers of control.
The Government should create a climate where existing businesses can flourish, and do their own job. That is surely the duty of any Government. Existing organisations are doing a good job, particularly those in the South-West, but they could do better with more encouragement and more financial help. We have the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the county councils, national park authorities and so on, doing a fine job in these areas and respected there. Where is the need for further boards and officials?
If the argument is that these areas are depressed and depopulated, look at what has gone on in those areas and what the present administration has done for them. The administration has imposed a severe burden on them, and this is no help to people in the areas where development boards may be set up. We have had further taxation, the Selective Employment Tax, rural bus operators have been caned, to say the least, and private industry has been squeezed out and upset.
Some of those areas have difficulty enough without what the present administration has imposed. Instead of setting up these development boards, the Government should look to themselves and start being a help and creating a climate before creating fresh boards. The Minister has not proved the need for development boards, particularly in the South-West where I have shown—[HON. MEMBERS: Order.]

Mr. Mills
Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I out of order? I should not have thought so.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
I have not heard anything out of order at the moment.

§ Mr. Mills
The Minister has not shown the need for these development boards. In Committee he never gave concrete reasons why we should have them.
I beg the Minister to consider this Amendment. I cannot see why it is necessary to have these boards, except possibly in Scotland and I hope we shall never see an expansion of this type of body in the South-West.

§ Mr. Peart
I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) should have deployed a general argument about rural development boards. The Amendment does not deal with the main arguments for or against boards. I thought that there was common agreement in Committee and that the Opposition had officially accepted them, although I appreciate that they may seek to improve the legislation.
I am dealing specifically with the Amendment. I am not going to be involved in a major argument on rural development boards. I would be out of order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It would help the House if I say that, on consideration, I think that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) did go rather wide of the Amendment. It would be unfair if, in those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman had to reply to the whole of the hon. Member's argument.

§ Mr. Peart
The effect of the Amendment, in the context of subsection (1) would appear to be to allow the Minister to establish a board in an area with special problems of development, and not in an area having only special needs. The intention may be to confine the designation of areas to those which have problems of farm structure, as described in subsection (2) whether or not they have special needs described in that subsection. I could not accept this Amendment and I would have to resist it if the hon. Member were to press it.

§ Mr. Godber
The Minister has not gone very far. He seemed rather shy of 311 dealing with the points made. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) made abundantly clear his own feelings about the rural development boards. While we have not opposed them in principle, we have never expressed great enthusiasm for them. This is a position which we established in Committee.
There are certain possible jobs that can be fulfilled, but we are also suspicious of an extension of these bodies and their wide powers. It is this which my hon. Friend was anxious to limit in the Amendment. It may have been of a limited nature but it shows the strong feeling which he and other of my hon. Friends have about the powers of these boards.
I am sorry that the Minister was not able to say more about the points raised. However, we have discussed the boards at considerable length in Committee and I do not wish to unduly delay the consideration of this point. We shall be watching very carefully the way in which these boards exercise the powers given to them and we have a certain number of other Amendments designed to limit in some degree the wide functions that they have, to which we shall come later.