HL Deb 11 November 1998 vol 594 cc760-74

3.2 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 7 [Strategy]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 27, at end insert (", and (c) have regard to regional planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State for its area.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I always feel at this point in the afternoon's proceedings that one needs to have a sentence or two which is not germane to the argument in order that noble Lords need not strain to hear it. Amendment No. 1 deals with a matter which your Lordships have addressed previously. It proposes that in formulating its strategy the regional development agency shall have regard to regional planning guidance for its area. At the last stage of the Bill the Minister rightly pointed out that there was a slight flaw in the drafting in that the regional planning guidance referred to was not limited to that issue—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I ask noble Lords to show some consideration for the noble Baroness who is trying to speak in the Chamber.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I am grateful. At the last stage the Minister pointed out that the amendment which I moved did not limit the regional planning guidance to that issued by the Secretary of State. I have rectified that with this amendment.

The Minister was sympathetic to the point. He said that the relationship between regional bodies and their documents was "of the highest importance" and that regional development agencies would need to have regard to regional planning guidance. He accepted also—I could not have come up with so appropriate a term—that the draft guidance on RDAs strategies, may not be as felicitous as all that".—[Official Report, 4/11/98; col. 317.] I return to the point and seek to extend the debate. I invite the Minister to give, if he can, a clearer statement, either now or through the Secretary of State in the final version of the guidance, on regional development agencies' contributions to the spatial and land-use planning objectives and regional planning guidance supporting objectives for economic development. That is perhaps a small extension of the relationship between the two strategies, the two planning documents.

It is imperative that regional development agencies contribute to rather than undermine government's wider spatial strategy—regeneration, the integration of transport and land-use planning, and so on. That is the strategy both of central and of local government. I suspect that the two cultures of land-use planning and economic development think in rather different terms. The introduction of regional development agencies will be an opportunity to set them on tracks to come together rather than further to diverge.

I move this amendment—and am prompted to do so—in the context of an announcement made in the Chancellor's pre-Budget Statement last week. He said that the Government, are also re-examining planning regulations and building control to identify barriers to productivity and job creation, and how the planning system in Britain can be speeded up to help us to emulate the success of high-tech clusters and corridors".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/98; col. 683.] He mentioned America's Silicon Valley. I appreciate that our discussions about the planning context for RDAs are about far more than development control and that the comment made by the Chancellor may have been more about particular applications of development control than strategic planning. However, when I heard that comment and read some observations about it, I thought that even the last government, in their deregulatory heyday, did not think about deregulating planning in the way that some commentators suggest may be a part of that thinking. We would all agree that efficiency in dealing with planning applications is extremely important, but so is getting the decisions right.

The main point remains the mutual effectiveness of regional planning guidance and the strategy of RDAs. It may also be worth finishing with the secondary point that regional planning guidance provides the scope for dealing with environmental and social matters. We have discussed those and their relationship with economic decisions throughout the passage of the Bill. I am still concerned, as I know are others, that the draft guidance does not refer to environmental decisions and indicators. I look forward to development of the guidance and any further comfort in that area the Minister can give today. I beg to move.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, the noble Baroness has, as she said, raised this issue at previous stages of the Bill and we have discussed it at some length. I believe, as the noble Baroness does, that there is no difference of objective between us. I accept also that she has taken my point about drafting and that the amendment is now more felicitous. Nevertheless, we do not believe that it is necessary; indeed, in certain circumstances, we feel it may be counter-productive.

First, we do not believe it appropriate to state on the face of the Bill something to which an RDA, like any other organisation, must have regard; that is, regional planning guidance. The Secretary of State issues regional planning guidance following the submission of a draft to which the RDAs will have contributed and on which all regional interests will have been consulted. It is also the Secretary of State to whom the RDAs will be responsible. No doubt, when they are operating, they will be aware of the Secretary of State's role in that respect. The relationship therefore between regional guidance and the regional development agency is not hierarchical; the two must be compatible.

As I have said previously, the key issue is that these new regional instruments, including regional planning guidance, are developing organically. It would cut across that organic development if we were to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill. In their day-to-day work and when planning their own development, regional development agencies will have to have regard to the planning framework in the same way as everyone else. They will contribute to the drawing up of that framework. It would be self-defeating for the RDAs to disregard it and they will have no incentive to do so.

Because the RDAs will be important consultees, the relationship between that process and their own process will form a vital part of the public examination of the regional planning guidance. It is intended—this may help the noble Baroness—to make clear in the department's revised guidance to the regional planning body (PPG.11) that the RDAs will be contributors to that process. The revised guidance should be issued later this year.

In the development of their strategies the RDAs will also have to have regard to the land use planning dimension of the RPGs; their contribution to that will be important. There is no contradiction here. The noble Baroness was perhaps raising unnecessary anxieties in relation to the Chancellor's Statement and the review of planning controls which the Minister for the Regions—Dick Caborn—is carrying out. It is not intended to deregulate and remove the planning process; it is intended to update and modernise it, bringing in wider considerations. In any case, it will not undermine the importance of the planning system and the land use planning arrangements that we have in our regions.

The fact that the RPG has greater legitimacy than the RDA's strategy, local authorities being so involved in it, may lie behind the noble Baroness's insistence on the point today. Clearly for the moment both the RPG process and the RDA process are subject to the Secretary of State. If and when we move to elected regional assemblies a different situation will arise. For the moment they are both responsible to the Secretary of State and that is where the accountability lies. That is why there must be compatibility between the two approaches.

The noble Baroness asked whether we would be developing appropriate indicators for RDAs that would include sustainable development and so forth. We shall certainly deal with that issue in the final guidance to assist RDAs in drawing up their strategies, taking into account consultation on the initial draft guidance.

The development of regional strategic frameworks by all the relevant bodies working together and in parallel is an important step towards the creation of a much more effective and, ultimately, a much more democratic regional planning process. There is no implication here that the RDAs would undermine the RPGs process. Indeed, the opposite will be the case. They will be complementing and feeding into it. As the noble Baroness said, the draft guidance to RDAs on their strategy could be improved to reflect that better. I am happy to confirm that point.

I hope that I have said enough to indicate that this developing process is best served by relationships being established in the regions between the various processes and various institutions rather than laying down a quasi-hierarchical structure, as would follow from the incorporation of this clause in the Bill. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendment. I give a commitment to the whole House that her objectives and mine will be met in this process.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those generous words. I agree that it is a question of ensuring that the guidance is right at this stage. My only comment is that, recognising that it is the same Secretary of State who will deal with both issues, I hope that he and his successors will see themselves as wearing one hat rather than having a wardrobe of hats which are changed according to the matter under review. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 27, at end insert—

("(1A) In formulating a strategy in accordance with this section, a regional development agency shall carry out consultation with government departments, statutory bodies, organisations representative of business and such other bodies with an interest in its work as it considers appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I said on Report that I was unhappy with the Minister's reply to a similar amendment. Having studied Hansard, I am even more so. I therefore propose this amendment in the hope that the Government will be prepared to think again. I shall not repeat the detailed reasons I gave on Report for the amendment. In short, the Bill places a duty on RDAs to consult when preparing their strategies and Clause 8 states that they should, in particular, consult with local authorities. Amendment No. 2 would ensure that the RDAs also consult with other agencies and businesses, as spelt out in the amendment.

The Minister's reply on Report was helpful and certainly showed that she had understood my concern. If I may say so, the noble Baroness has done so on other matters before and I am grateful to her for that. On 4th November the Minister said that RDAs, having read and, it was hoped, understood the Government's guidelines, would probably do as my amendment demanded. She also accepted in col. 320 that my amendment, hit on the heart of the matter". If so, why is it not on the face of the Bill?

I must accept that although my amendment is all-embracing, and I want it to be so—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester at Report stage—the noble Baroness spotted my specific anxiety when she said, at col. 321, We envisage it [the RDA] will include the Government Offices in the regions, which will be the normal liaison point between RDAs and government. Government Offices will have close contact with all government departments, including MAFF".

I believe the Minister spotted my concern at the time; that is, that agriculture and rural matters should be prominent in the RDAs' strategy. At col. 298 the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, As agriculture is so important to the regional strategies … the Minister of Agriculture will be an important component of the decision making process". Again, at col. 340 on the same day, he said, The agricultural interests will be represented here".

If so, why is it not on the face of the Bill? The only reason I can discern is from the remarks of the noble Baroness at col. 323 when she reminded us of the Pepper v. Hart case. I fear that I cannot accept her argument in this instance. Having specifically mentioned local authorities in Clause 8, lawyers may well conclude that the organisations mentioned in my amendment, but which are not mentioned specifically in the Bill, may be excluded.

I can see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, scowling. I hope that he agrees with me, although I suspect that he will not. What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander. I expect the Minister will repeat all the assurances that she gave me and then say that my amendment is unnecessary. However, it is not. Over the past 18 months, as a farmer and rural dweller I have been given assurances and promises ad infinitum, but so far they have all turned out to be jam tomorrow. I am afraid that I find the Minister's assurances on this Bill fall into the same category. Indeed, my suspicions were confirmed when I looked at the list of those recently appointed as chairmen of RDAs.

Without reflecting upon their ability—which I certainly do not—none of them, in my opinion, has a true rural or agricultural background. I very much doubt whether many of them could tell the difference between a turnip or a swede, although I have to admit that occasionally nowadays I find difficulty in so doing. I have in mind in particular the one for the south-west region. My noble friend Lord Arran is not here today, but he pointed out that the south-west region was predominantly agricultural. I do not think that the chairman was an agriculturalist there.

I suggest that the Minister should take out her red pencil. If she does not have one, I can lend her mine. She should then cross out the word "Resist" which is printed on her brief and accept my amendment. I believe that it would seriously clarify and improve the Bill which, it is to be hoped, is still the main purpose of your Lordships' House, frustrating though it is. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I had no intention to speak on this amendment, but whenever I hear mention of Pepper v. Hart it drags me to my feet. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend who so clearly and eloquently put forward his case had a reserve in his mind about the possibility of that case being of use in getting the regional agencies to understand the Government's intention.

However, I feel bound to say that even if one were to accept the validity of the principles of Pepper v. Hart—which I have always found difficult to do—it would merely enable a Minister who is handling a Bill in either House of Parliament to be quoted by those who want to hang on to his words perhaps for years afterwards. It would be very dangerous indeed to regard reliance upon Pepper v. Hart as a substitute for accepting the views put forward by my noble friend.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell

My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, because it emphasises the need for RDAs to carry out consultation with other bodies where appropriate. While effective networks already exist within county areas—and these include local authorities and representatives of the private and voluntary sector—they do not yet exist in the same way across the regions.

For example, the partnerships which already exist in Nottinghamshire, from where I come, are well established but the same is not yet true of the East Midlands.

I believe that most of those bodies have a clear commitment to support the future work of the RDAs. Indeed, it is to their advantage to do so. But that commitment, which includes significant and considerable knowledge and expertise, will be lost unless the RDAs for their part are committed to carrying out appropriate consultation with such bodies. In that respect, I am thinking especially of the voluntary sector and faith communities with which I have a particular link. I remind your Lordships that their experience and involvement in such matters as development of community and concern for social regeneration are extensive. It is vital for us all that RDAs succeed in their work. That is why I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment, which simply requires proper and appropriate consultation.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, the purpose of Amendment No. 2 to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for RDAs to consult with government departments and other interested bodies in the region when producing their strategies. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has put forward a powerful argument for this to be a statutory requirement. Like us, he recognises that this is a vital matter.

The Government fully agree with the noble Lord that it will be vital for RDAs to consult widely when producing their strategies. We are grateful that he has provided us with an opportunity to emphasise the importance that we place on full and proper consultation. Indeed, I remind noble Lords that the draft statutory guidance, on which we are currently consulting, specifically says that the RDAs, should consult widely with Government and other interests nationally and within the region". The noble Lord referred to Clause 8. In fact, he is wrong. It does not require RDAs to consult with local authorities, as he suggested. It makes provision for the Secretary of State to designate a "regional chamber" for the RDA and for the Secretary of State to issue directions in relation to consultation if it is deemed necessary. We do not expect to have to issue such directions. We expect RDAs to consult widely in their regions about strategies and, where appropriate, in relation to their functions more generally.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell is correct to say that the process of development of the "effective networks", including voluntary groups and local authorities, has progressed at different rates in different regions. However, I am sure that very good progress is being made in all regions towards this coming together of such interests.

Our view is quite clearly expressed in the consultation document which has been circulated. It reflects both our view and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that it would be unacceptable for the RDA to produce its strategy without consulting regional interests. If the strategy is to provide a framework for economic decision-taking in the region, it is essential that it commands the support of the region. In producing their strategies, RDAs will bring together the work and activity of a wide range of organisations, including, for example, business, industry, local authorities, TECs, Business Links, trades unions, rural and environmental interests, which are obviously central and of great importance, higher and further education and the voluntary sector; indeed, a wide range of interests needs to be taken into account. For the strategies to be successful they will need to command the support of the region so that they can become the basis for regional economic decision-taking. That will be possible only if they consult widely with local and regional interests. It would be inconceivable for the RDAs to develop strategies without regional partners being closely involved.

The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that it will also be essential for the RDAs to consult government about their strategies to ensure that they are consistent with national policies. Unless they do that, the Government will not feel able to endorse the strategies or use them as the basis of their decisions about regional matters. This does not mean that RDAs' strategies will simply restate national policy. They will need to reflect fully not only national policies but also be able to do so in a way which best suits the circumstance of the region.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that there is no difference in our desire to see the RDAs consult fully on their strategies. Perhaps the only difference between us is how we ensure that is achieved. The noble Lord seeks to put a requirement on the face of the Bill; the Government feel it is not necessary to do that to achieve his objective.

We think it is right that the Bill should give RDAs a framework of powers to allow them to make decisions which reflect the circumstances and needs of their regions. We purposely chose not to take a prescriptive approach. The RDAs will be accountable to Ministers and Parliament for their decisions and the Secretary of State has powers to give them guidance and directions both generally and in relation to their strategies, should that be necessary. He could therefore direct an RDA to make arrangements for appropriate consultation, but we have every confidence that it will not come to that.

The noble Lord tempts me into a discussion on the use of the words "turnip" and "swede". I was born in the east Midlands—to which the right reverend Prelate referred—and then moved to Lancashire and I realise that the names are not the same across the country. The vegetable may be known as a turnip in the south but it becomes known as a swede in the north. Further north in Cumbria it is known as a neep. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will feel this has been a helpful and comprehensive reply and that he will feel able not to press his amendment.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I noted with interest that my noble friend Lord Renton managed to put to bed the Pepper v. Hart aspect. The noble Baroness did not take that up. However, like my noble friend, I believe it would be much better to have the provision I seek on the face of the Bill than to resort to Pepper v. Hart because, believe it or not, not everyone reads Lords' Hansard. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his remarks, which were similar to those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. My amendment has much relevance to the institutions he mentioned.

The Minister said it would be inconceivable for the RDAs to develop strategies without regional partners being closely involved. I have to tell her that nothing is inconceivable. The October weather was inconceivable but it happened. Therefore I do not trust anyone, let alone myself, to act in the way the Minister thinks we should. It was a case of jam tomorrow but not jam today. We never seem to get jam today, although I have great hopes that the new agriculture Minister is close to giving us jam. Not everyone reads the guidance notes. As a matter of interest, on the previous occasion we discussed this matter the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester could not find the guidance notes. I know the RDAs should read the guidance notes, but that is not the same as having a provision on the face of the Bill.

As I understand Clause 8—I spent a fair amount of time trying to fathom it out—I may have been slightly economical with the truth in my remarks in so far as the RDAs do not have to consult with local authorities but the Secretary of State can make them do so. That is a case of splitting hairs as to whether the Secretary of State tells them to consult or they tell themselves to consult and set up a consultative body. I believe that is what Clause 8 achieves. The noble Baroness looks as confused as I was to start with, but I think I have the matter right this time, or near enough right. I am not happy with the situation. I would have much preferred to have the provision on the face of the Bill, but I shall leave it at that.

On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

3.35 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

This is an important Bill. It provides for regional development agencies to be established in each of England's nine regions. Once the Bill is passed we intend to set up eight regional development agencies this year and one, for London, in the year 2000. The Bill takes forward a key manifesto commitment to decentralise decision-taking to England's regions. The regional development agencies will provide for effective, properly co-ordinated regional economic development and regeneration, and they will play a major part in ensuring the future economic prospects of all the parts of English regions. The statutory purposes of the RDAs have been developed from experience of the existing agencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But they also reflect the objective of this Government to ensure that economic problems are considered in an integrated way, tackling business competitiveness and the need to increase productivity, but also the underlying problems of unemployment, skills shortages, social exclusion and physical decay.

As noble Lords will be aware, this is the first Bill I have taken through as a DETR Minister. I wish to record my thanks to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate from all sides of the House. It has been a useful experience for me and I hope it has been an informative experience for the House. I hope noble Lords do not think it remiss if I pick out one contributor in particular; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who played an especially important part in the scrutiny of this Bill. With her customary politeness, but nevertheless a focused determination, she made the case for the rural areas. The Bill now gives Ministers a clear remit in respect of the appointment of board members to ensure that the needs of a region's rural areas are taken into account. The Government listened on that occasion and agreed that that would be an improvement to the Bill. I think it was a good use of the House of Lords' procedures.

Anyone who follows the regional press or visits the regions will know that many people have high expectations of regional development agencies. There is much support for them even in regions in which traditionally there has been no strong regional identity or regional co-operation. Once the Bill is passed, it will of course be primarily up to the regions and the agencies themselves to deliver more effective and enhanced regional prosperity which will benefit all parts of all the English regions. This is a good Bill. I thank everyone who has participated.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Witty.)

Lord Monk Bretton

My Lords, there is one matter that I wish to mention at this stage. During the passage of the Bill I spoke about the good service rendered to rural communities by the rural community councils and their relationship with the Rural Development Commission, which is to be disbanded. It emerged that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, and I had the same wish to see this good work continue as before. That was good news. However, I still have anxieties as to whether that will happen. Until now the Rural Development Commission has had a clear remit to maintain the rural community council network. The Government have currently renewed this—through the new Countryside Agency—but only until the year 2000. However, the noble Baroness gave the House good assurances as regards the Government's intentions thereafter. But what is to happen after 2000? That still remains a pretty open question.

The main options for continuing this work are through either the regional development agencies or the new Countryside Agency or a mix of both. Reading the Bill, the prospectuses and the guidelines for these new agencies, it is clear that so far these agencies have not been designed to carry on this work of a long-term, comprehensive countryside role in the way the Rural Development Commission has done until now. Thus, as matters rest at present, there is an area of public policy central to the Government's core mission which risks being lost by default. It is to be hoped that there is still time to get these matters right, but it may well not be easy. It is important that we should proceed, as far as possible, on the old lines we have known, to work very much on the principle of "If it ain't bust, don't fix it", and to stay as near as we can to where things were before.

As to the social work side of what has been done by the Rural Development Commission, I hope that the central monitoring unit of the commission will be retained on a national basis. Otherwise I fear very much it will disintegrate.

That is the unfinished business that I felt I must mention at this stage.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

My Lords, I rise briefly to give my thanks to both Ministers for listening at Committee stage when I put forward an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to consult those who represented rural interests when appointments were made to the RDA boards. The amendment I proposed at that stage had been tabled in another place by my honourable friend Tim Yeo and brushed aside. It is a recognition of the work of your Lordships who spoke on that occasion, and also a tribute to the work of both Ministers, that in this House the amendment was given a better, more thorough hearing. I am grateful to the ministerial team, not only for listening but for obtaining agreement in the DETR that the amendment should be brought forward and adopted on Report, with the more felicitous wording that the Government were able to achieve.

I understand from some Members of your Lordships' House that there is a view that there is unfinished business. I am sure that that will remain a view despite the welcome to some parts of the Bill. I am equally sure that your Lordships will have the opportunity in further debate to test how effective the provisions of the Bill have been once it comes into operation. I am sure that your Lordships will be holding the ministerial team to account for the operation of the Bill in the future. At this stage I wish to record my thanks to the ministerial team. I hope that, with your Lordships' help, I shall be able to persuade them to be so receptive in the future.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate the Minister. As he pointed out, this is the first Bill that he has taken through his department. I congratulate not only him and his colleagues but express my warm appreciation to the Government for their initiative in creating the opportunities that the Bill will present. As the Minister has said, it is not a new idea but is built upon experience in other regions.

Lord Dormand of Easington

Particularly the north.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, particularly the north, as my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has pointed out.

It is a stimulus for organisations such as the co-operative movement. I am very proud of my association with that movement. The creation of the Bill has concentrated minds of a disparate nature in the co-operative movement and ensured that it speaks with one voice in putting forward its ideas of what it would like to see happening in each of the regions—not only in retailing, but banking, credit, housing, agriculture and a great many other spheres. Throughout the co-operative movement there has been a recognition that there should be a synthesising of its interests in order to maximise the strength of the voice that it can make heard at a regional level.

The Minister and his colleagues have made a very good start, even though there has been some criticism. There is a general acknowledgment that anything the Government can do to concentrate the minds of people in the regions on the benefits that can come from working together in partnership and by maximising the existing strengths, led by a Government-inspired team, is well worth pursuing.

I congratulate the Government on what they have done. The phrase "unfinished business" has been used more than once. I have always been prepared to let the Government have their way and to see what happens in the event. This House will have a continuing role in monitoring what happens in the regions. One of the strengths of this House is that there are people from all regions, with experience and contacts, who will take every opportunity to remind the Minister where the Government are going wrong. Once again my thanks to the Minister and the Government for this initiative.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, when the Bill started its passage through this House I said that we broadly welcomed it. That is still the case. We hope that a regional approach to regeneration will prove to be effective. I, too, would like to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for the time that they have given outside as well as inside the Chamber, in helping to forward discussion on the Bill. I also thank my own colleagues and, like others, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, who has been so constructive in edging us forward to a position where the Bill really does reflect rural concerns in a way that was not apparent on the face of the Bill when we first saw it, whatever the intentions.

I hope that the Government will take on board the constructive comments that I know will be coming their way on both sets of draft guidance. I have already commented that it might be more appropriate if the sustainability aspects were not dealt with in such a way that they could be interpreted as some sort of add-on. That goes back to an earlier, very important, discussion, which will continue as the agencies get up and running.

I look forward to the designation of the regional chambers. I wish I could look forward with any reasonable level of optimism to their funding being adequate to the task that they will have to undertake. I am well aware of the great disparity in the funding of the various chambers. This is an important Bill. We wish the agencies, the chairs who have been designated—and one of them is listening to this debate—the members who are to be appointed and their staff the very best in what is an extremely important job.

Lord Bowness

My Lords, as we come to the last stage of the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton for their courtesy throughout all its stages. I also thank my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon and other colleagues on my Front Bench who have assisted me throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly want to add my thanks to the Minister for the amendment about rural interests, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, for her persistence in ensuring that this was achieved.

I wish, however, that it had been possible to make more changes to this Bill. In the White Paper and at Second Reading the Bill was held out as a major decentralising measure. But nothing has been done to this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House to alter the fact that, in my view, it is a centralising measure. It provides a vehicle for the exercise of power by the Secretary of State. His hand is upon the levers of power. He appoints, he gives his guidance, he gives his directions, he decides whether or not he will delegate to the Regional Development Agencies the powers that he has vested in him by Parliament.

There are a number of specifics which remain outstanding. The position of local government is still unsatisfactory. The Government have failed to put upon the face of the Bill the number of local government members to be appointed to each Regional Development Agency, although I understand from the assurance of the Minister that four members will be appointed.

I remind your Lordships that the Government have also refused to put on the face of the Bill the provision for local government members who lose their electoral mandate to resign. I concede that the Government have suggested—I am grateful to the Minister for what I am sure is a helpful and well intentioned suggestion—that if no active members of local government within the area were left on the RDA it might be possible to use the terms of the appointment letter to remedy the situation. I accept this Minister's assurances but I would have preferred for the future to have had some safeguards on the face of the Bill. I submit to your Lordships' House that local government has a special position. It is elected locally and it is capable of bringing an element of elected accountability to the regional development agencies.

My second outstanding concern is the Government's refusal to contemplate any alteration in the number of regions at some time in the future. The number is nine—I have got it right today—but it must remain nine irrespective of how matters turn out. This measure was designed, we are told, to give power to the regions. The Government have taken the regions as designated by the previous government for their regional offices, with one exception, determined that they shall be the regions for RDA purposes. There has been no determination of the boundaries by the Boundary Commission and there is no provision for the Boundary Commission to review them. The only alteration that is possible, under Clause 25 of the Bill, is to the extent of a region and not to the total number. The Government have even rejected the possibility of such a review and an alteration in the numbers after five years.

Local interests are being forced into the constraints imposed by central government with no real chance of a separation if that proves to be the local wish. Although Ministers have denied that these proposals in any way pre-empt decisions on boundaries for regional assemblies if they come about, there can be no doubt whatever that, as a result of the pressures imposed by the regional development agencies within the areas, the Government are, whether it is intended or not, forging regions which do not currently exist, which do not currently have a significant coherence and which may not be best for the delivery of local services and policies. I have no doubt that everyone involved will do their best to make the regional development agencies work for their regions and, in so far as they are concerned with prosperity and employment, everyone will hope that they work and will wish them success. But we should not be under any illusion that they are local bodies. No one should be under any illusion that they will not impact on local government in the areas and on the policies and functions of local government. They will be quite different from the UDCs of the past.

We will have RDAs for the whole of England. The whole country will be covered by centrally appointed bodies answerable and accountable to the Secretary of State, a point made on an amendment earlier today by the Minister. I shall not repeat the core functions and the many policies and programmes in which regional development agencies will be involved. However, we do not know, beyond the possibility of TECs' funding, what else the Secretary of State may choose to delegate to the RDAs.

With funding from central government—what impact that will have on other bodies, despite assurances given, is difficult to tell—the regional development agencies are poised to be significant players in their area. In so far as they deliver prosperity and employment, we wish them success, but it is the ability of the Government to manipulate them that should not be under-estimated. We should not portray this in any way as a decentralising measure or an empowerment of the regions. It certainly should not be described as power to the regions and decentralisation.

For that reason, because so much is coming together in the hands of the Secretary of State, we shall follow the progress of the regional development agencies very closely indeed. If the RDAs are to be accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament, it is in Parliament that questions about their functions will have to be asked and answered.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I note all of their remarks, including those that will be pursued in another context. I refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. I would make just one point to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. The Bill is a serious contribution to the decentralisation of power. It cannot be taken on its own. It is an initial stage. But, together with the cumulative process to which this Government are committed, we will truly be devolving power, both democratically and administratively, to the English regions, to the greater benefit of all our regions and all parts of our regions. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.