§ Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 4, after ("area,") insert—
§ ("( ) such persons as appear to him to represent the interests of those who live, work or carry on business in rural parts of the agency's area,")
7.10 pm§ The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn)I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill, as we sent it to the other place, provided a general list of the types of people whom the Secretary of State must consult before making an appointment. The list included representatives of local authorities, employers, employees and others. Each heading in the list could be said to encompass rural interests no less than non-rural interests. I can confirm that that is how we have proceeded.
None the less, we are a listening Government, and we have been happy to listen to those who have said that their concern about identifying board members with rural expertise will persist unless the Government put it beyond any doubt that rural interests will be consulted about appointments now and—what seemed to cause most concern—in the future. We were happy to table the amendment in the other place to do just that. I commend the amendment to the House.
§ Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)This is a minimalist, grudging amendment that has been brought about by effective Conservative opposition. The Minister says that he wants to place it beyond any doubt that the Government are concerned about rural interests. That has been in doubt for a long time, particularly during the passage of the Bill, and it remains in doubt to this day.
The amendment goes some way towards meeting the Conservative party's point about rural representation. In the other place, a similar amendment was rejected, on the odd ground that it was not appropriate for London. That amendment proposed that a representative who was an expert or had some involvement in rural interests should sit on the development agency.
We accept that this amendment ensures that rural interests will be consulted. Our concern is that pressures grow, and it will be all too easy for urban interests to dominate debates inside the development agency. The amendment does not fully alleviate that concern, but it provides some consultation of rural interests, and as such we are happy to support it.
§ Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)The Liberal Democrats are grateful that this matter has been considered and an acceptable form of words has been found. Many of the divisions in our society between urban and rural areas are based on misconceptions. It was important to address this issue, and it has come back before us today. Many people in rural areas will feel more satisfied that their voice will be heard under these new structures.
§ Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs)I, too, am relieved that some element of rural representation 670 has been accepted in the amendment from the other place. As the representative of a rural area in West Sussex, I have two concerns outstanding. The RDAs will, in effect, clearly take the lead on transport policy, and, in practice, may take the lead on structural planning. Those are two key rural issues, and I express the great concern of my constituents from all parties that the powers of county councils, particularly rural county councils, will be emasculated.
§ Mr. CabornI can clarify the position for the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). Planning and transport powers will not be assigned to regional development agencies.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.