Mr. Hammond: Yes, in just a moment if the hon. Gentleman would bear with me. ...... The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) asked why I am dissatisfied with the current regional boundaries, when they were indeed established by the previous Government. However, those regions were established for convenience as a tier of administrative government and, as vastly disparate areas, are simply not suitable for the introduction of democratically elected institutions.
+++++
6 pm
Mr. Clelland: I do not want to make a long speech. I merely want to get to the bottom of the Conservatives' motives. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said a few moments ago - I think I quote him accurately - "We want to dispose of this matter appropriately". That, I believe, is what the Conservatives want to do: they want to dispose of the matter altogether. They probably think that a wholesale reorganisation of regional boundaries, if it happened, would take so long that a general election would be upon us which, in their own pathetic minds, they imagine they might have a chance of winning. While that is not impossible, of course, it is very unlikely.
I see no need for a review of regional boundaries. As I said earlier, the current boundaries were drawn up by the last Conservative Government, who seemed to think them appropriate then.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): I would be entirely content for there to be a Government office for the west midlands for statistical and administrative purposes, but I would not be content with a severing of the link with Gloucestershire, which is important in the context of the Three Choirs Festival and the three counties showground. I would not be content to be run by Birmingham. Administration and government are very different. I wish the hon. Gentleman would understand that crucial distinction.
Mr. Clelland: I think I understand it quite well. I was about to say that as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent any Government or Secretary of State from making proposals to change regional boundaries in the future. We are not drawing up boundaries for ever. Indeed, once we have regional government regions themselves may well suggest boundary changes, and there will be nothing to prevent such changes.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): The Minister said that it would take a year to review local government. The regions can be dealt with at the same time: that would certainly not take longer than a year. The process will not be exactly prolonged. Does it not make much more sense to sort out the boundaries before proceeding further? The hon. Gentleman's region contains perhaps 1.6 million people, and he may be content with his boundary, but the south-east is very much larger and shares no integument across its boundaries.
Mr. Clelland: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism. I think the process would take a great deal longer. I also think the Conservatives know fine well that their proposals would mean the end of regional government this side of a general election. That is what this is all about.
Andrew George: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he may be expressing a self-interested view? I have made it clear that I am happy for the North-East to proceed as quickly as possible, but there is not a settled belief in many other so-called regions that the boundaries are acceptable. Whether there is a one-off wide-ranging review, or whether the North-East goes ahead and the "difficult" areas become a part of a separate review by the Secretary of State or the boundary commission, the issues need to be addressed; otherwise there will be no regional government in the bulk of England.
Mr. Clelland: I think that if the Conservatives get their way and the Liberals are minded to support them, there will indeed be no regional assemblies. But if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I should declare an interest when defending what is best for my region, I plead guilty. I certainly believe that regional government would be good for the North-East.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) prayed in aid the director general of the CBI, who apparently said that businesses were not keen on the idea of regional government. The director general recently told the Deputy Prime Minister's Department that most businesses considered the planning control system to be a major burden on new business development. A later survey found, however, that most businesses ranked it 13th out of 15 in terms of importance. I do not think that the director general of the CBI necessarily always represents the views of his members.
+++++
6.45 pm
Mr. Clelland: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is opposed to regional government in principle or because it does not suit his area. The Bill is not about setting up regional government but a referendum. I assume that he has respect for his electors, so why does he not have enough respect to allow them to decide for themselves?
Mr. Howarth: Had my hon. Friend allowed me to develop my argument further, he would have understood my position better. To repeat my earlier point, although my instinct is against the whole process in principle, the Bill has received its Second Reading, so I want, over time, to achieve an accommodation that would allow my constituents to feel comfortable in a region other than something called "the north-west". That is the point that I was trying to develop.
+++++
Mr. Clelland: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr Curry) says that his constituents will not have a choice, but they will have a vote. I understand the point that he makes about the weighting, but where was he when the Conservative Government abolished metropolitan county councils? Where was he when the Conservatives abolished the Greater London Council and Cleveland county council? What choices were people given then?
Mr. Curry: I lay claim to the authorship of the abolition of Cleveland and Humberside - and I am delighted to do so. My argument is not about whether unitary councils are good or bad; on the whole, I have some sympathy for unitary local government. My argument is about who should take the decisions. Decisions on unitary authorities were taken by the House. Orders were passed in this place. However, the Bill proposes a referendum process in which people who may have no interest in the matter, who do not represent anybody else and who have not been elected will take decisions for my constituents.
Important issues will be involved. Health and social services are probably the most important of all. As we know, the Government are constructing a whole new architecture to manage them and, as the Minister will know, North Yorkshire has experienced chronic underfunding in those sectors.
+++++
Mr. Clelland: My right hon. Friend mentioned the powers. He will recall that I asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago about the suitability of a draft Bill for the regional government legislation. Labour Members have made that point twice in the debate. Does he not think that, in view of the new systems of examining legislation, a draft Bill would be appropriate in this case?
7.30 pm
Mr. Raynsford: We said that that is not ruled out and we will certainly consider it. Indeed, it may be one way to provide the extra clarity that some hon. Members want. Clarification will, of course, be provided in the White Paper, the boundary committee's structural review and the Government's statement before electors vote. It is possible that we will also choose to adopt a Bill that receives pre-legislative scrutiny.
| Promoted by Ken Childs on behalf of David Clelland, both of 19 Ravensworth Road, Dunston, Gateshead. NE11 9AB |