§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
11.19 pm§ Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)Those who may have been drawn to this debate through love of minutiae of etymological discourse will be sadly disappointed.
I asked for this Adjournment debate because I am concerned about the general failure to distinguish between devolution and administrative regionalisation; between responding to popular consensus to devolve power to Scotland and Wales and the top-down division of the remainder into Government administrative zones, without first establishing the same community of interests or popular support.
Today's final stages of the Regional Development Agencies Bill has confirmed once again that the debate is concentrating on specific functions—access to board members, concordats, planning matters and what should happen to the Rural Development Commission's resources—so much so that we run the risk of abandoning our critical faculties.
Pinned on to the emperor's robes—in this case, the robes of the regions—will be the badges of economic development agencies, chambers and probably regional assemblies. When it is pointed out that those regions do not exist, the badges will begin to look ridiculous, quite apart from being painful to the wearer.
The Government must recognise that, with a few honourable exceptions outside Wales and Scotland, there is little or no demand for devolution in the remainder of mainland UK. Where any interest is expressed, it is largely for reasons motivated by fear—fear of being left out or left behind as opposed to a demonstration of enthusiasm for devolution and the setting up of new regions. Many towns and cities are demonstrating that point right now.
Outside Scotland and Wales, the setting up of regions would create essentially artificial and bureaucratic constructs. England has not been divided into separate political regions since the Norman conquest. Given the option today, there appears little strong evidence that the English people would prefer a more decentralised model of government than the present unitary state. Indeed, as many of my hon. Friends regularly point out, as a Cornish man and not an English man, I can take a dispassionate and objective view on this matter.
Although power is being decentralised to London, it is not decentralisation in the proper sense, but rather a tidying up and clarification of strategic decision making and planning for the London area. Other than that, it is probably only in parts of the north of England where there appears to be some concerted public demand for the decentralisation of power, which is welcome.
Yet where there is clear popular support for devolution, the Government appear to ignore it. For example, whether one calls the territory a province, a department, a region or, as many would prefer, a small nation, Cornwall is an interesting case in point. In his 1995 report to the Labour party for the Institute for 1387 Public Policy Research, Stephen Tindale draws attention to the special status of Cornwall. He says:
The Cornish conundrum poses a particular problem for regionalistsand points out that, with a population of half a million, the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly region is larger than many other European regions. Like many others who have commented on this, he argued that cross-border issues are resolvable with the continuation of joint boards and ad hoc groupings. Tindale went on to argue that Cornwall should be given the option of becoming a county with regional status. He drew attention to the strong cultural and linguistic case for Cornwall, which he felt set it apart from other cases for small regions within the British state.Whether or not Cornwall is an exceptional case, an important point of principle is established. Strong cultural traditions and identities can and should provide the platform for, rather than the obstacle to, devolution, just as they did in Scotland and Wales. In the headlong rush to set up regions, we need to be certain that we do not simply replace the bland uniformity of a centralised unaccountable state with the bland uniformity of synthetic regions based on bureaucratic convenience, thus adding to the problems rather than to the opportunities of places like Cornwall.
I urge anyone who has never noticed the Cornish pride and strong attachment to the area and wants to know what I mean to come to Twickenham on Saturday 18 April, when more than 50,000 Cornish rugby fans will take over that corner of London. I may be wrong, but I imagine that many of them know little about the rules of the game. They will be there for the county championship final not just to watch Cornwall crush whatever the opposition will be that afternoon, but as a focus for and demonstration of their pride and identity.
If, instead of being ignored, that passion was recognised as a strength and even a little of it could be bottled and used as the basis for a devolved region or province of government, a great deal could be achieved. Instead, under the current drift of policy, Cornwall and places like it face oblivion. Why?
For whose convenience are the regions being set up? With the historic opportunity of a period of significant constitutional change, why is the drawing of the regional maps so conservative? If the purpose is to ensure a substructure of government comparable to that of our European partners, why not examine the variety of regional structures on offer?
§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)Does my hon. Friend agree that vast regions with disparate and variable per capita gross domestic products will dilute the regional assistance available for areas such as my constituency, the county of Cornwall and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)?
§ Mr. GeorgeI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall deal with that point later.
Germany, Italy and Spain contain regions of a variety of sizes, including some smaller than Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.
If regions are a response to public demand, where is the demonstration of popular legitimacy? The Government have argued that adopting a largely 1388 administrative division of government zones is a convenient, ready-to-hand, off-the-shelf solution. Does the Minister recognise that that could do a great deal of harm and overlooks the great strength of building on strong regions or provinces that already exist? In some so-called regions there is more internal disagreement than community of interest. Many predict that the regions contain the seeds of their own destruction.
§ Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)Does my hon. Friend agree that the concern that he has described has already made itself felt in Wales since the referendum on the assembly? We are seeing the danger of internecine disputes in administratively defined regions that bear no geographical similarity to what those living in those enforced regional areas feel.
§ Mr. GeorgeI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that support. Many parallels can be established.
The Minister may believe that places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are too small. Is that not another case of repeating accepted wisdom without challenging it? What economies of scale are being sought? Could they be achieved through partnership and collaboration? Part of my constituency is the Isles of Scilly, with a population of 2,000. As well as being a county and district authority, the council is also the public water authority. Most of the extra costs of running the authority are due to the distance from the mainland, not problems of scale.
Larger units also bring costs. For Cornwall, any economies of scale would be far outweighed by the associated diseconomies of scale, such as the leakage of higher-paid jobs to the east and the statistical invisibility of poorer areas. Even if the case for larger areas can be proven—I do not believe that it can—issues of accountability, sense of ownership, belonging and popular legitimacy are more important than a narrow Thatcherite focus.
Some may also argue that to allow regions to define themselves would inevitably lead to disputes and some claims for absurdly small regions or provinces. On any mild inspection, those problems could be easily overcome. Clearly, no one could justify the setting up of a strategic tier of government on a scale smaller than that of the largest tier of local government for the area. Therefore, waggish claims of unilateral declaration of independence for towns and villages would not survive cursory inspection. On disputes over size, just as it is not for the people of the west of England to hold a referendum on whether Wales should have an assembly, the decision of one area to call for its own regional assembly should—or rather could—not be overturned by its neighbour deciding that it could not allow it.
I reassure the House that in this debate it is not my intention to plummet new depths of parochialism and insularity—quite the opposite. As anyone who has experienced it knows—as I do from finding out what it means to be Cornish after I left school, I am sorry to say—by understanding oneself, one is able to make clearer parallels with other groups and minorities in other parts of the world.
I understood that the Government wanted to join the celebration of diversity in a nation rich in cultures, languages, races, identities and traditions, but their proposals for regions will kill off passion and replace it 1389 with bureaucratic blandness; suffocate identity and replace it with soulless and synthetic placelessness; submerge popular legitimacy with justification of bureaucratic convenience.
§ Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne)I was very much hoping that the hon. Gentleman would raise what for many people in Cornwall is the No. l issue: objective l status. That is in my view the answer to the many problems that the county faces. Discussion about boundaries and assemblies is way down the line in comparison with the importance of dealing with objective l status, securing Government support and securing support in the European Union. Does he agree?
§ Mr. GeorgeAbsolutely; I am coming to that point. The underlying problem is that, in the Government's impatience to set up the paraphernalia of RDAs, they must ignore proper consideration of how regions are determined. Before the process goes too far, I urge the Government to rethink. I urge them to build on the strength of identity rather than allow identities to be submerged; to initiate a profound rethink and revisit the principles represented by the Scottish and Welsh models; and to allow those parts of the country that are viewed as examples by others to bring forward their cases for regional assemblies, which includes the case for objective 1 status. If the Government recognise Cornwall's regional status in that sense, it will unquestionably enhance Cornwall's case for objective 1 status in Europe.
My final question for the Minister relates to the example of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, as much for their sake as for other parts of the UK that wish to establish and build on their identities. I am not hellbent on attacking the Labour Government, but I am very much hellbent on succeeding in securing objective 1 status and not losing the identities and sense of passion on which we can build local provinces. What advice, encouragement and support can the Minister offer those who want to bring forward the case for distinct regional assemblies for smaller areas and, in so doing, bolster the case for Cornwall's objective 1 status?
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle)I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on successfully securing the opportunity to debate the Government's policy on the definition of regions. I understand that he did not vote for the Third Reading of the Regional Development Agencies Bill, although many of his colleagues did, but I hope that time will prove that his caricature of the mechanisms on which we have just voted successfully as passionless and bureaucratic is wrong. Such mechanisms offer many of the chances for diversity and regionalism that he has suggested for the future of Cornwall.
The previous Government neglected and ignored England's regions. They believed that everything could be dictated by Whitehall and that local government should dance to Whitehall's tune. By contrast, this Government have embraced local government, championed devolution and cultivated the regional agenda. We have been elected with a firm mandate to address the neglect of the previous Government.
1390 We produced a White Paper on the regional agenda. We are setting up regional development agencies in England, which will be complemented by the steps that every region in England is now taking to establish a voluntary regional chamber. We are also giving Londoners the opportunity to have their own elected assembly and a mayor with real power and influence.
Many of England's regions are rooted in history. Some are based on geographical features, while others are based on industrial or cultural legacies. The hon. Gentleman described a particular cultural legacy in Cornwall, which has always had its own special sense of place. Even a cursory look at our history would make anyone realise what a special place Cornwall is.
I recognise that regional identity is not as marked in some areas as it is in others. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in the south-west, regional identity is less well established than in many other areas. Common cause has tended to be made at what, in our administrative terms, is a sub-regional level.
Cornwall, sometimes with Devon, operates as an entity distinct from the five counties in the east of the region. However, people are increasingly recognising—as I will demonstrate, this applies to the relatively disparate south-west region too—that in order for a region to make its mark and put itself in a position to improve its regional performance, there has to be the right critical mass to achieve economies of scale. What we have recognised, and what our consultations show, is that distinct economic and social regions demand new forms of governance to serve their needs.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about the problems of Cornwall, and I know that the county has had more than its fair share of difficulties—a decline in its traditional industries, a GDP at only 69 per cent. of the European Union average, a heavy reliance on seasonal trade, low salaries and peripherality, to name but a few.
None the less, it is important for Cornwall to look forward. It is all too easy to dwell on problems. The county cannot change its geography or its peripherality— indeed, I suspect that it revels in that—and the national minimum wage will help with the problem of low pay.
I am aware of the excellent work being done by, for example, the Cornwall "In Pursuit of Excellence" initiative, to promote the county as a place where business can compete and win in world markets. Cornwall has successfully attracted inward investment by companies such as the American-owned Harman International, Contico Europe and Pall Corporation, which are all based in the Redruth and Camborne area. We need to broadcast the good news without dwelling on, or ignoring, the bad.
How many people are aware, for example, that a printer in Falmouth has secured a £6 million a year contract to produce all the national lottery pay slips and receipts—a contract that I suspect may go on for ever—or that Allen and Heath of Penryn exports 90 per cent. of its state-of-the-art audio-mixing consoles, or that Radiocode Clocks in Helston has secured major contracts to supply the United States navy with precision time frequency and synchronisation equipment, or that Pendennis shipyard, Falmouth, exports up to 80 per cent. of its luxury yachts, some to the middle east, the United States and Australia? Cornwall can build on such successes.
I am confident that there is a determination in the county to overcome the current economic problems, and the Government will play their part in helping that to 1391 happen. Special measures are in place to help Cornwall to overcome its economic problems. Most of the county has Department of Trade and Industry assisted area status, which can attract regional selective assistance—RSA— and west Cornwall has the highest, development area, status.
On 13 February we announced an RSA grant towards a £21 million capital investment that will create 300 new jobs in Cornwall. Including that project, we have, since April 1997, made 18 offers of RSA to companies in Cornwall. That will go towards capital investment of £35.5 million, which is forecast to create 777 new jobs and safeguard a further 86. Twelve of those projects are in west Cornwall, and will create more than 300 new jobs.
Regional selective assistance is helping Cornwall attract inward investment, and indigenous companies are being helped to invest and grow. Devon and Cornwall Development International is working hard to market Cornwall overseas. Regional partners have a key role to play in identifying and bringing forward strategic serviced sites and supporting infrastructure that will be attractive to inward investors. The regional supply office is working to develop local supply chains so that business is not lost to the region. English Partnerships is providing sites and premises needed by inward investors under its special "Factories First" programme in Cornwall and Devon.
The single regeneration budget challenge fund is supporting economic regeneration in Cornwall with £11.5 million in grant, which is expected to create many new jobs and businesses. We announced this week that we would give the West Cornwall employment programme £780,000 funding in SRB round 4—towards a £6.5 million total cost—which we hope will create some 1,000 additional employment opportunities for those most affected by the decline of traditional industries, particularly tin mining.
The whole of Cornwall is eligible for support from the European objective 5b south-west rural development programme, which, at £170 million, is the largest in the UK. The programme contributes to a south-west small business fund, co-financing English Partnerships' "Factories First" initiative and supporting rural training and information opportunities. Major projects include the private sector-led £8 million Bodmin business park, which will create 60 new business units and 477 jobs.
§ Mr. Andrew GeorgeWill the hon. Lady deal with the definition of regions and objective 1 status? I appreciate her description of the successes, of which I am well aware, but how does she respond to the specific questions that I raised?
§ Angela EagleThe hon. Gentleman should be patient, as I shall come to that. It is important that we remember the success stories as well as the difficulties, which can help inward investors to put matters into perspective.
A new European initiative starts this spring. More than £2 million will be available in the south-west objective 5b area to provide financial support to small and medium businesses.
1392 I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and other hon. Members from the area for their campaigning work to achieve objective 1 status for Cornwall. We recognise the very strong arguments that Cornwall is advancing for objective 1 status—with only 69 per cent. of European Union gross domestic product per head, Cornwall's needs are clear.
Cornwall will remain an objective 5b area until the current programmes expire at the end of 1999. The European Commission's detailed legislative proposals for the reform of the structural funds were published on 18 March, and will still need to be negotiated. Until there is agreement on final proposals— by the end of this year, I hope—it will not be possible to establish how individual areas may be affected. Hon. Members can be certain that the Government will seek to secure the best outcome for Cornwall and other parts of the UK.
We also await Eurostat's decision on whether to accept the Government statistical service's proposal that Cornwall should be a separate nomenclature of units of territorial statistics level 2 region—that is a funny way in which to say that Cornwall should qualify for objective 1 support.
The hon. Gentleman asked about regional boundaries. The boundaries of the Government offices are based on local authority boundaries, which reflect historical identities. We intend to build on the success of the Government offices—the boundaries of the new regional development agencies will be based on the Government office boundaries. There are sound policy reasons for that—the boundaries are well established for economic purposes, and we think that it makes sense to base RDAs on them. We believe that that is the most workable option, given the wide range of functions and responsibilities that RDAs will have.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, the average size of regions across Europe is a population of about 5 million. That seems to be about the right critical mass to achieve a proper strategic overview, successfully to attract investment and to promote healthy competitiveness. A region needs to be big enough to be effective and to allow the right economies of scale. That will ensure that the benefits that we expect from RDAs will be forthcoming.
We believe that each of England's regions should be in a position to reap the benefits of having an RDA. In the south-west, preliminary moves to establish a regional chamber are well advanced. Leaders of all 51 local authorities of the region agreed at a meeting on 27 February to the establishment of a chamber with representatives of about 20 of the social partners. At the same meeting, it was also agreed in principle to set up a regional local government association, possibly in the early summer.
Sub-groups have been set up to examine voting arrangements and the relative level and division of social partner representation, and I understand that, if all goes well, there will be a formal launch in June. Of course, I give all the partners in the south-west my whole-hearted support for their efforts and hope for a successful outcome to their deliberations.
1393 We would not want to accede to a review of RDA boundaries at this stage. That would only fuel any disagreement and rivalries within regions, when preparing for RDAs should be the priority. The Bill itself has created a momentum, even in those regions without a strong traditional regional identity.
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and I have visited all the regions on more than one occasion to hear at first hand the views of stakeholders on our proposals. There is overwhelming support for them, and every region in England is taking steps to form a regional chamber. Some, of course, already have one.
Some commentators have suggested that our proposals for RDA boundaries are too strict to allow co-operation to take place across or, indeed, within them. The hon. Member for St. Ives spoke about the importance of sub-regional arrangements and hinted that there would be oblivion for Cornwall in the RDA. I disagree with that. Sub-regional arrangements are not only possible but should be encouraged in the new structure. I could not agree more that such arrangements are important, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be flexibility for the RDAs to respond to pressures from within, as well as, in some instances, across, RDA boundaries.
We are not devolving power to the regions only to dictate policy from the centre, but we expect attention to be paid to the internal sub-regional realities. Cornwall will be best served by a single powerful RDA for the south-west, providing the strong voice and clout that it needs, but with robust sub-regional arrangements.
1394 The new regional development agency for the south-west will have an important role to play in helping to strengthen the local economy in the longer term. The introduction of RDAs is central to our work on improving competitiveness. The legislation is evolutionary, and we expect RDAs to make their own way and decide how best to deal with the regional and sub-regional realities.
To be successful, the RDA must have the confidence and co-operation of the whole region, but it must also represent and respond to local needs and interests. Its economic strategy will need to address regional economic disparities through regeneration as well as wealth creation, and it must reflect a proper balance between rural, urban and coastal needs.
An RDA provides the south-west, alongside other regions, with a major opportunity to bring direction and coherence to the task of improving regional competitiveness while recognising and respecting diversity. The region must grasp the opportunity, and that requires focusing whole-heartedly on developing partnership, integration and co-ordination of effort.
The responses to the RDA consultation from partners in the south-west show that they recognise the need to work together and improve the competitiveness of the less well-developed economies in the region. Now is the time for the region to put that into practice, through the RDA. I look forward to watching its progress.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Twelve midnight.