§ Mr. CurryI beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 10, at end insert—
'(2) No statutory instrument may be made under subsection (1) until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a copy of any concordat reached between Her Majesty's Government, the regional development agencies in England, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales (or any of them) in relation to regional assistance.'.I return to an issue that I raised when the Deputy Prime Minister presented his White Paper on the subject; on Second Reading; and in Committee. What measures will be put in place to ensure that there is not competitive use of public funds by different regional development agencies?
That is a crucial issue, as the Government keep telling me. They told me that it was crucial after the presentation of the Government's proposals. They told me that it was a crucial issue on Second Reading. They told me that it was a crucial issue in Committee. What they have not told me is what they intend to do about it.
We know that there is to be a concordat on the matter. I thought that concordat was a happy name arrived at to cover this particular circumstance, but I strayed by accident into the debate on the Scottish Parliament yesterday and discovered that a veritable undergrowth of concordats has sprouted.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), speaking about a concordat between the Government and the eventual Scottish Executive on inward investment—precisely the subject that we are discussing—invited me, if I had the technological skill, to surf the Scot Nat website in order to find the document that had been leaked and that he had had put on the website.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. My secretary, who has the technological skills—pending my acquisition, reluctantly, of the same—was eventually successful in 1360 identifying the document, which I have. There are a great deal of hieroglyphs on it, but the bits that are not hieroglyphic are pretty comprehensible. They refer to mutual consultation in adequate detail and to a reasonable time scale on any proposals for new legislative provision, and mutual consultation before making offers of financial assistance. It is a fairly detailed document.
The Under-Secretary told me that the concordat was between the development agencies. In Committee she said that the concordat would "involve" the Scottish and Welsh development agencies. I am not clear whether that was a word that just came out of the word processor, or whether "involved" was carefully chosen so as to be somewhat ambiguous. My suspicions are provoked.
Is there one concordat or two? Is the Under-Secretary referring to the same concordat that the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan were talking about yesterday? I hope that the hon. Lady will respond to that question. Is it a concordat between the Government and the eventual Scottish Executive? Is that the concordat that the hon. Lady is talking about?
9.45 pm
If that is the position, there is a glaring contradiction between the words that the hon. Lady spoke and the words of the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office. In Committee, the hon. Lady talked about the importance of the matter and said that all hon. Members agreed that the
cost to regions of inward investmentbeing bidded up had to stop. She continued:The problem is being considered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and by other Departments. Indeed, the Prime Minister has taken a close interest in the matter. Appropriate"—that marvellous word again—co-ordination will ensure that there is a cohesive and effective national approach to the issue. It will be strengthened with a concordat between different parts of the United Kingdom, the terms of which are still being considered by the Government. Those terms will be announced when they have been finalised.I pressed the Under-Secretary on the issue, asking her when we would have the marvellous document to which she referred. She replied:
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon should bear in mind that the vesting day for the RDAs is in April 1999, and although the concordat might not be in a finished written form before we conclude considering the Bill, it will certainly be available before vesting day."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 February 1998; c. 319–20.]As I have said, I strayed into yesterday's debate in Committee of the whole House. The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, in response to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, said:Work on draft concordats will proceed before devolution, but they cannot be agreed until the Scottish Executive is established. The coverage of each agreement would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to agree.The Minister emphasised that point later when he said:The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made the point, and I want to reinforce the response again, that agreements cannot be made until the Scottish Executive is up and running, and it should be clear that draft agreements cannot in any way be considered to be binding on it."—[Official Report, 31 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1159.]1361 Where are we? Which of the two timetables is correct? Are there two concordats or is there one? If there is one concordat, how do we reconcile the timetables spelt out by the two Ministers, who operate in the same Government? If there are two concordats, are we to have two concordats on inward investment operating to a different time scale? Are we between different bodies or the same body? If there is a concordat between the development agencies and their Scottish and Welsh equivalents, will it be binding on the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Executive? Will it be binding on the respective Parliament or assembly?
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)I do not want to add to the right hon. Gentleman's suspicions. My history, although rusty, tells me that a concordat is a much more temporary agreement than a treaty. I am not suggesting that a treaty would be appropriate, but I share the right hon. Gentleman's suspicions about the semantics of the sudden appearance of concordats in the British constitution. I wonder whether he has examined what the permanence of the arrangement might be.
§ Mr. CurryThe hon. Gentleman is right. When the word "concordat" was first evoked by the Under-Secretary, I assumed that it constituted a pragmatic solution to deal with a particular problem, a problem on which we all agree. I suddenly discovered that a concordat has acquired perhaps a more constitutional function as representing a quasi-treaty between different parts of the United Kingdom.
I think that that takes us back to some extent to the time of Charles I and the Scottish covenanters. Here we are covenanting some agreement, but is it binding? Will the Scottish Executive live with it? Will the Scottish Parliament eventually be able to provide additional finance and override any agreement? These are crucial matters.
The English regions have felt that there is a process of gazumping from the Welsh and Scottish development agencies. That is a serious problem. It is important that these matters should be transparent from the point of view not only of people who live in the regions and have natural aspirations for employment and opportunity, but of the use of public money. We should not throw money at inward investment unnecessarily; it should be part of a strategy. Throwing money at inward investment is not only unfair in terms of public expenditure: it would be deeply confusing to the investor if he thought that the UK did not know what it was doing and that different people were trying to do the same thing simultaneously from the same pot of money. I wish to be reassured. I have asked for such reassurance umpteen times on a matter that I believe is central in terms of the probity of public expenditure and the operations of RDAs.
When the Minister responds, will he spell out who the concordat is between—who will sign it? Is there one concordat or are there two? If there are two, who are they between and what do they cover? Can either or both bind a Scottish or Welsh Executive and assembly? When do they or it come into force and will 1362 it or they be public documents? Those are crucial questions on which I hope to receive a response tonight. If I do not, I shall persist because this is a crucial issue.
§ Mr. CabornI assure the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that there is more than one concordat in all, but that, on this subject, there is one concordat. There are a number of concordats well beyond inward investment; they are on a wide range of mutual interests. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to keep a watching brief, if not a watching interest, on the development of devolution within the United Kingdom.
The amendment is prompted by the right hon. Gentleman's desire to ensure a co-ordinated approach to inward investment throughout the UK on the basis of a financial concordat between different parts of the UK. The amendment specifies that no statutory instrument bringing into force provisions of the Bill should be made until such a concordat has been laid before Parliament.
As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to publishing a concordat on financial assistance. We reiterated that commitment earlier this week when we published our response to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the co-ordination of inward investment.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have been working on that for a while. We hope shortly to publish a concordat on inward investment that ensures that offers to inward investors provide value for money for taxpayers and are fair to all parts of the UK, while allowing effective negotiations to attract large inward investment projects. However, this is a complex subject. I am sure that he will understand that we will need to be satisfied that the new arrangements represent an acceptable way forward for all the countries of the United Kingdom before the Government publish their proposals.
I understand entirely that the right hon. Gentleman is keen to see the final concordat. I am too. I assure him that the English regions are being represented forcefully in those discussions. I am sure that he also understands that the previous Administration had similar difficulties, but did not try to resolve them in terms of the Union. We are trying to do that. We need a little time, but we will come back to the House when those agreements have been reached. I have no doubt that he will continue to press us until they are brought back to the House. It is his duty to do that as a member of the Loyal Opposition.
§ Mr. CurryThat merely gets us into greater confusion. We have now established that there is one concordat, so the Under-Secretary is talking about the same concordat as the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office last night. That is a matter of agreement; it has been accepted. However, it is going to come into force at different times.
The Under-Secretary said clearly that
although the concordat might not be in a finished written form before we conclude considering the Bill, it will certainly be available before vesting day."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 February 1998; c. 320.]1363 That is April next year, if I recall rightly, but the Scottish Executive will not be in existence by April next year and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office said:I want to reinforce the response again, that agreements cannot be made until the Scottish Executive is up and running, and it should be clear that draft agreements cannot in any way be considered to be binding on it."—[Official Report, 31 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1159.]There is a glaring contradiction between those two statements.
The concordat cannot be brought into force on different days. Which statement is true? Will it be brought into force when the Scottish Executive is up and running? I think that the Minister said that he will finish the concordat "soon". A third date has therefore been floated.
The matter is, first, very confusing. Secondly, it is not very straightforward. Had the Under-Secretary clarified the matter in Standing Committee by saying, "A document is being prepared between constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and this is when it will come into force," we would know where we stood. However, she clearly said that it will come into force by vesting day. A Scottish Minister has said the complete opposite. We have established that there is only one document, which cannot divide itself—like one of those funny lamps that goes up and down, with a blob in the middle. We need to know where we stand.
I am trying to make light of the matter, but it is a serious matter of clarity and of providing accurate information to the House. The House has been given two entirely different versions of the timetable for the same document. We have also been given two versions of whether it will be binding on the Scottish Executive and, presumably, the Welsh Executive. Will it or will it not be binding on them? We have been left in a state of deep confusion.
Many people in the regions are already suspicious enough about how the RDAs' procedures and competing subsidies will be used. If we do not receive some clarification on the matter, RDAs will get off on an extremely bad footing, with much suspicion about the meaning of devolution in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Minister will give the House a more accurate reply, and specifically tell us—this is point one— when the concordat will come into force. Secondly, will it be binding on the Scottish Executive? I ask him to remember that two Ministers already have track records on trying to answer those questions.
§ Mr. CabornOne thing is absolutely certain: when the concordat is completed, it will be something that the previous Administration, of whom the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was a member, could not achieve in 18 years—a sensible inward investment arrangement that does not cost UK taxpayers millions of pounds, which they never should have paid. We are currently in the process of bringing together the parties to the agreement—Wales, Scotland and the English regions. Once we are finished with the process, we shall present the case to the House in a concordat.
I am not quite sure which concordat the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has been dealing with, or whether the inward investment concordat was 1364 mentioned in yesterday's debate. I am therefore not able to pronounce on that matter. Once we issue the concordats, something that has been a very expensive exercise for the UK taxpayer will be resolved. The concordat's implementation date will also be stated in the concordat.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon should not get so excited about implementation dates. The previous Government had 18 years in which to issue a concordat, whereas we have had fewer than 11 months— only a few months—to do so. We shall resolve the matter, and save the UK taxpayer one helluva lot of money.
§ Mr. CurryThat is a load of blarney, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. None of us disputes the need for sensible arrangements to regulate use of public subsidy. It does not matter whether the Conservative Government produced a concordat. We did not propose devolution, and circumstances were different. The Minister has not responded to the issue of why two Ministers are singing a different tune to the same words. The House is dealing with that problem.
I understand that it is very much in the tradition of the House for an hon. Member to reserve the right to return to a matter that has not been satisfactorily dealt with, rather than to press it to a conclusion—when it might be deemed to have been settled properly. I wish to revisit the matter, and hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that he has not dealt with the substance of my concerns. I put him on notice that I plan to return persistently to the matter, because of the deeply unsatisfactory nature of the responses that we have received so far in debates on the Bill.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.