I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

New clause 2 is a technical change to the Bill. It exempts transfers of property that are made under the Bill from stamp duty. As such exemptions are allowed only in the case of transfer between public sector bodies, we have tabled amendments to clauses 39 and 41, which limit the use of those powers to transfers from the Rural Development Commission and English Partnerships to other public sector bodies.

It would clearly not make sense for stamp duty to be paid on transfers made from one public sector body to another, as the Exchequer would, in effect, be funding the payment of a duty to itself. In view of that, I hope that Conservative Members will agree to the inclusion of new clause 2 and to consequential amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

Conservative Members have no objection to the new clause, which seems to be essentially technical in nature. However, I believe that it is grouped with new clause 1—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Is it not?

May I clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman? We are dealing with new clause 2 and Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in clause 7, page 3, line 39, at end insert

'and

(d) the needs of the rural areas within any region.'.

New clause I would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of regional development agencies on rural areas, and to report the results of that assessment to Parliament. Amendment No. 1 would require the Secretary of State, when issuing guidance to regional development agencies on their strategies, to take account of the needs of rural areas within their region.

I very much regret the necessity for the new clause and the amendment. I had hoped that, after almost a year in power, the Government would have at least begun to realise that rural areas have special needs, and that policies that are tailored for the urban areas, which they so much favour, are not automatically suitable to be applied to the countryside.

We have had a year in which the Government have systematically removed resources from rural local authorities by changing the funding formula under which standard spending assessments are calculated and under which the revenue support grant is distributed. Changes to the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments have removed £94 million from rural local authorities.

We have had a year in which protection of the countryside through the planning system has been ruthlessly undermined. We have had a year in which respect for rural traditions has been steadily eroded, and in which the incomes of farmers and others who earn their living from the land have been steadily falling. Against that background, it is perhaps not surprising that the Government's Bill establishing regional development agencies has completely neglected the needs of rural communities.

The Government's policy on the countryside has moved from denial, to panic, and into confusion. Ministers started by denying that there was a problem. Subsequently, they panicked at the extent of public hostility to their attitude. They are now in confusion about what to do. They are not only confused about what to do: they are confused about who should do it. Only a month ago, at the time of the countryside march, there was an unseemly struggle over who was in charge between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The same hostility towards the countryside which characterises the Government's general approach has been apparent throughout the Bill's consideration. During the Second Reading debate and the Standing Committee's 13 sittings, we looked in vain for a single sign that the Government appreciate the real fear—a widespread fear—that those regional development agencies will be urban-based and urban-focused, that they will have urban-dominated boards, and that—at the request of the Secretary of State—they will pursue an urban agenda.

At one point in the Standing Committee proceedings, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning seemed to take on the part of an Agriculture Ministry mole. His ignorance of rural matters constituted a powerful argument for transferring responsibility for countryside policy from his own Department to the Ministry of Agriculture.

On 12 February, in the Standing Committee, the Minister managed to confuse the Rural Development Commission with the Countryside Commission. Last Friday, the Government announced the merger of those two bodies—a somewhat drastic solution to the problem of a Minister who had not done his homework.

The extent of the Government's determination to prevent regional development agencies from having to consider the rural dimension was shown when they argued against and defeated an Opposition amendment that would have required the Secretary of State to consult

"such persons as appear to him to represent rural interests in the agency's area."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 January 1998; c. 73.]

The amendment reflected the Opposition's concerns, but it also reflected the concerns of many organisations that had taken the trouble to respond to the Government's consultation exercise last year on regional development agencies. We know how much importance the Minister attached to that exercise, because he referred to it not only many times in Committee but right at the start of his speech on Second Reading. He said:

"our consultation paper received more than 1,500 responses, which universally supported the case for development agencies in England to match those which have worked so successfully … in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 14 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 373.]

Some of the organisations that responded to the consultation process found that their views were quoted in the White Paper. Unfortunately, the full text of their responses is not available to hon. Members in the Library of the House. The full texts are not even available to the organisations that the Minister quoted in the White Paper. They are available only to people who go to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in person and study them in its library.

4.15 pm

The full texts will repay study. People who take the trouble to study them will see how selective the Government were in the White Paper.

On the subject of omissions, when the hon. Gentleman was discussing elements that affected the decline of the countryside and the problems faced by rural communities, I did not hear him mention BSE. Does he accept that BSE was caused by the Conservative Government's deregulation of the food chain?

I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, given the limited time available. The idea that Ministers are directly responsible for diseases is patently absurd. If that were the case, I presume that the present Government continue to share exactly the same responsibility.

I was drawing to the House's attention the selective nature of the quotations in the White Paper, which is particularly apparent when it comes to rural issues. For example, the National Farmers Union is quoted on page 45 of the White Paper. The words chosen by Ministers are:

"There is clear merit in having one agency take a strategic overview of the needs and potential of a region"—

a supportive quotation, as one might expect given that it has been carefully hand-picked.

Elsewhere in the response from the National Farmers Union, in a part that is not available in the Library but is kept well out of sight in the basement of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we find something rather different. I quoted the NFU in the Standing Committee on 29 January as saying:

"The legislation which creates Regional Development Agencies should require them to have regard to the needs of their rural areas and reflect those needs in their policies and programmes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 January 1998; c. 74.]

Clearly, that quotation puts a different gloss on the matter from the quotation in the White Paper.

A similar example occurs in the case of the Country Landowners Association. The Minister was very ready to quote the CLA in the White Paper, and on page 16 he quotes it as saying:

"The test for RDA involvement must be when the issue is too big to be resolved by a single County Council or Unitary Authority, yet not of a scale requiring national intervention."

However, the CLA had much more to say about regional development agencies, although for some reason its other comments were not quoted in the White Paper, and, as in the case of the NFU, they were not available in the Library. In the same response from which the Government chose to quote in the White Paper, the CLA said:

"There is a real danger that Regional Development Agencies will be biased towards representing urban interests."

The CLA, the NFU and the Opposition share the same concerns as many other individuals and organisations outside the House. Those concerns prompted us to table new clause 1.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered clauses 7 and 8? Clause 7 says that the regional development agencies must follow a strategy in their work, and clause 8 says that a regional chamber must be set up in each RDA area and the strategy discussed with that regional chamber.

As the regional chambers are representative of all areas that fall within the region concerned, I should have thought that rural interests, as much as any other interests, would have a full opportunity to be consulted, to make observations and to participate in formulating the strategy.

I assure the hon. Lady that I have considered those clauses in great detail. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to give directions to a regional development agency about its strategy—the formulation of that strategy, the subjects that it can consider and the other matters that it can take into account when making a strategy. The clause gives complete control over the strategy of every regional development agency back to the Secretary of State, whose record over the past 11 months has shown that he cannot be trusted on countryside issues.

Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to decide which body constitutes the regional chamber. That is not a matter for the RDA, the local authorities or the people of those regions to decide; it is solely for the Secretary of State. Almost every decision on RDAs ends up on the desk of the Secretary of State, who has proved beyond doubt that he cannot be trusted with the English countryside.

Will my hon. Friend consider new clause 4, which has not been selected for debate? It highlights the question whether regional development agencies should have regard to the general interests of rural areas and the agency to be created from the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission when formulating their strategies. It would be highly desirable if RDAs should statutorily have regard to the general situation of rural areas.

My hon. Friend is right. I heartily endorse the sentiments expressed in new clause 4, which has not been selected for debate. It contains much good sense. The Minister could show the Government's sympathy for it when he replies.

This afternoon provides an opportunity for clarification on the Government's merger of the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission. The concerns expressed by the CLA, the NFU and the Opposition are widely felt outside the House. I hope that the House will show this afternoon that it shares those concerns.

It is difficult to understand why the Government may want to resist amendment No. 1. However, given their past form, I fear they may, so we are offering them new clause I as an alternative. It would force the Government to come clean about what regional development agencies are doing in rural areas. The need for the new clause is best illustrated by the tortuous history of how the Labour Government dismembered, and are now destroying, the Rural Development Commission.

Back in December, the Government announced that the rural regeneration work of the RDC would be transferred to the regional development agencies. That decision provoked the resignation of the chairman of the RDC in protest. Then came the publication of the Bill, which provides in clause 39 for the Secretary of State to wind up the RDC. That clause provoked questions about the Government's intentions towards what was left of the RDC—a rump of a body whose viability many people were questioning.

Initially the Minister was, perhaps uncharacteristically, rather coy. On 3 February, he claimed that, until the comprehensive spending review had been finished, nothing could be said about the future of the RDC. On 19 February, following the occasion on which he confused the Rural Development Commission with the Countryside Commission, he told the Standing Committee that the outcome of the comprehensive spending review might result in the retention of the Rural Development Commission.

Just five weeks later, we are being told that the RDC is to be merged with the Countryside Commission. That is a fast-changing policy, in which the only loser is the countryside. With this Government, the interests of the countryside always come last.

Will the Minister assure the House that all the existing functions of the Rural Development Commission will continue? Will he guarantee that a sum equivalent to the budget of the RDC will be added to the budget of the Countryside Commission, and will continue to be spent in rural areas? Will the Minister today end the uncertainty over the future employment of Rural Development Commission staff who have suffered protracted anxiety about their jobs for more than three months?

No amount of spin-doctoring has been able to prevent the public from realising what a miserable record the Government have in rural areas. Today's debate is yet another chance, after so many have been thrown away, for the Government to rescue their position. To regain a shred of credibility in the countryside, they merely have to accept the new clause and amendment No. 1, which I commend to the House.

I did not have the opportunity to serve on the Committee, but, as a member of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, I had the opportunity to receive evidence on the most important issues facing the new regional development agencies.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) mentioned that the Government do not seem to realise the importance of the countryside. I think that I have found an occasion when they did. In their response to the Select Committee report, the Government say:

"It is the Government's aim to ensure that the rural and non-rural areas are treated equitably according to their needs, and that RDAs do not become urban-centred bodies that neglect the needs of their rural areas."

I am sure that we would all share that sentiment. However, the risk that the agencies become such bodies is very great. Given the size of the RDAs—they are giant; there is nothing about them that is even vaguely local—it is only natural that major urban centres will dominate, and that most of the expertise will come from such urban centres.

Given the shock wave that seems to have hit the Government, following two very large and important countryside marches, they have made a number of concessions to the countryside. Such concessions are against the backdrop of significant reductions in funds available to county councils and district councils in country areas.

We know that changes with regard to green-field sites came on the back of the two marches. We know that, apparently, no village school will close without the Prime Minister's decision. We know that the Government are looking at the future of cottage hospitals in rural areas. We are suggesting, in a fairly constructive way, that we pull together all the expertise and experience in order that we may see once a year what is happening to rural areas.

There is a need for a distinct voice for the rural economy among the new giant RDAs. The Select Committee is currently taking evidence about housing needs, and some would argue that there is quite a lot of pressure on urban areas, where various civic authorities want an uprating of the economy. They look to the provision of jobs and manufacturing, and want services largely to be supported from suburban areas and the countryside.

As one hon. Member said this morning, that is part of the process of civic uplift. If we are not to become a country dominated by the suburbs and ignoring the needs of the countryside, the countryside must have—and deserves—a distinctive voice.

The countryside was not set in aspic, in some rural dream, when we began passing Town and Country Planning Acts; it is a living place. We must understand that there are some real issues that need to be addressed.

Let me give a simple example. Because of changes in agriculture, there are now many redundant farm buildings, and one of the great challenges is how they should be used. The easiest solution, which is often favoured, is that they all be converted into dwellings.

However, several authorities have taken the sensible view that the most appropriate way to deal with redundant buildings would be to introduce some light industry, so that jobs start to come back into the countryside. Several authorities have tackled that question, but, given the size of rural England and the nature of the problem, even the giant regional development agencies will not be able to concentrate on such needs.

4.30 pm

That is why it is important that, once a year, we should receive a report outlining what is happening. After all, the restrictive nature of some of our present development plans would almost certainly have ensured that blacksmiths, for example, would never have been seen in the countryside.

We need to ensure that the regional development agencies do not take an anti-countryside view. Such a view was best expressed by Mr. Tony Travers, I believe, in a recent article in the Evening Standard suggesting that one way to deal with the problems of the countryside would be actively to ensure that the services available there deteriorated—reducing health and education services, for example, so that people would leave the countryside and return to the urban areas.

I do not believe that anyone sensible would suggest that we repeat some of the mistakes of the 18th and 19th centuries, when our countryside was depopulated. Nor would we wish to suffer the fate of some rural places in France that are becoming depopulated, in which smaller and smaller groups of people pay for increasingly restricted and decrepit services.

What would be the key task of the annual report? One of its responsibilities would be to reduce commuting in the countryside, and to bring back life with light industrial and high-tech developments. There are examples of that in and near my constituency, and I have seen how a dedicated local authority has intelligently tried to attract such development. We do not want isolated communities, because all the jobs are a long way away. We want communities in which people do not normally have to travel far to earn a living. We must see the countryside as a living place, not as a place to visit at weekends.

That is why the old Rural Development Commission was so useful, because it could bring in expertise from people in Essex, for example, and apply it to, say, Somerset or Gloucestershire. It could spread the cost of such work and of research. Breaking it up into nine areas will make that more difficult. That is why it is so important to have an annual report, to concentrate people's minds on the subject at one particular time.

I started by talking about the Select Committee report and the Government's response to it, and I shall finish with another quotation, from paragraph 27 of the Government's response:

"It is envisaged that RDAs will design rural regeneration programmes targeted on the particular needs of their deprived rural areas. They will monitor, consult and report on rural programmes and how they are being tackled."

If the regional development agencies are to do that, it would make sense to gather the reports together and present them, as we suggest in the new clause. That would give us an opportunity to debate the subject every year. Our principal concern is that if the House does not accept the amendment, the countryside will be swamped by the needs of the urban sprawl.

The fact that regional development agencies need to address the real concerns of rural areas is unquestioned. I have the privilege of representing a middle England seat that is 50 per cent. rural—the urban areas of Ashby and Coalville have a population of 44,000 from a total in North-West Leicestershire of 88,000.

Rural villages deserve their share of attention, and would protest vigorously if they were neglected or overlooked. We need to monitor the progress of rural regeneration in the new RDA structures, but it would be costly and unnecessary to require yet another report to be laid before Parliament each year. Existing and planned reporting mechanisms are more than adequate.

Most of the North-West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire rural development area is in the two former mining areas of my constituency. I am pleased to say that the Rural Development Commission has been an unqualified success in its local activities. It has pursued a strategic, needs-led economic and social development programme, led by local partners with strong local government involvement. Its emphasis has always been on a planned partnership approach to rural regeneration, catalysing public, private and voluntary sectors to secure lasting economic and social improvements that reflect local circumstances.

The local RDA strategy, which was first prepared in 1994, was thoroughly reviewed in 1996, and further changes were incorporated last year. Three of its reported key aims are to improve the local transport infrastructure, the skills of the local work force and the image of the rural development area, to attract more inward investment. The realisation of those objectives is urgently needed to prevent the former coalfield areas from becoming an offshore island of the east midlands economy—low-pay, low-skill, low-tech ghettos that are cut off from mainstream development and surrounded by the relics of two centuries of mining.

Recent Budget announcements on rural transport and welfare-to-work initiatives on training, and the more coherent approach to rural regeneration that the Bill will provide, will tackle the RDA strategy concerns that I have mentioned. They have been widely welcomed throughout the rural villages of my constituency, including the one in which I live.

We currently receive regular and helpful RDC reports, but we want continued action, in the form of projects such as the "Heart of the Forest" rural challenge at Moira, a large former mining village surrounded by derelict land and continually threatened by opencasting and landfill— the two ugly sisters of the minerals world.

That £5 million project—with an RDC contribution of £1 million—will create a major tourist attraction at the former British Coal Bathyard site, with the potential to encourage a further 150,000 visitors a year to our area. It will provide a visitors centre, training workshops, office accommodation and a forest experience trail. The "Heart of the Forest" project has, in many ways, levered in a further massive £6 million lottery grant towards a £12 million millennium scheme that will transform the immediate vicinity. I need no convincing of the virtues and successes of the RDC.

At the other end of the financial spectrum, the most recent RDA report referred to the £100,000 Concept network, which is a project to increase the supply and access of information technology and training advice and information through the establishment of four resource hubs in North-West Leicestershire. The Concept network will allow local people to take advantage of changing employment trends in rural villages, offering necessary training, access to information technology resources and on-site child care.

I am confident that such RDC successes will feature regularly in the annual reports of the new RDAs. The future East Midlands RDA will report to the Secretary of State, who will lay a copy before each House of Parliament, under clause 17. That is a more coherent channel of accountability than exists at present or would exist under new clause 1.

Our rural development area in North-West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire has been supported by both single regeneration budget and RECHAR 2 finance. English Partnerships has also contributed cash via the derelict land grant programme. My local village, Ibstock, won a national competition with a prize of £100,000 for development and improvements to our area, led by Ibstock Community Enterprise, of which I am a management committee member.

Co-ordinating all the agencies has been a real challenge. I am optimistic that the new East Midlands RDA will provide a more coherent strategy, tighter co-ordination and better reporting than currently exists, but it will have a hard act to follow in North-West Leicestershire, where the Rural Development Commission has been an outstanding success.

In Committee, Conservative Members expressed ad nauseam their alleged concern for rural areas, and said that they had been neglected by the new Labour Government. That belated concern apparently fuels the new clause. If there were regular reports to Parliament from the previous custodians of rural interests, I am wholly unaware of them.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the widely acclaimed White Paper "Rural England" was the subject of an annual update under the previous Government—a procedure that the present Government have stopped?

I am aware of that, and I have read the report; but the debates that took place after its publication were most unhelpful, and scarcely critical of the previous Government's record.

Reports not actions, and words not deeds, would have been the order of the day from a party that in government closed 450 rural primary schools, built on vast tranches of green-field sites, and walked away from the 25 per cent. of the rural population who live in or on the margins of poverty. Under the previous Administration, we who live in the villages experienced an unacceptably indiscriminate approach to rural development in many areas, simply encouraging footloose businesses to abandon the towns and cities, and doing little or nothing to meet the specific needs of rural communities.

The born-again rural advocates in the Conservative party are urging on us the need for a new and separate reporting mechanism for rural areas. Had that existed at the end of the previous Government's term of office, the annual countryside report would have condemned them for incoherence, inertia and incompetence in policies for the rural areas, the majority of which are now represented by Labour Members.

Would it be fair, then, to say that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the annual report because he fears that it may be critical of the Government?

We have nothing to fear on our track record so far. We are but 11 months into government. I am surprised that we have not had an eleven-twelfths-of-a-birthday card from the Conservative party. The Government will transform the prospects of rural areas in a way that was not their fate in the previous 18 years.

The deathbed conversion of the Conservative party to the need for a distinctive approach to regeneration in the countryside fools no one, least of all the rural voter. The Conservatives espousal of openness and accountability in rural reporting is absolutely at odds with their record in government.

I endorse the view that the momentum built up by the flexible and well-planned regeneration work undertaken by the Rural Development Commission must be maintained by the new RDAs. I welcome the new role that the RDC will undertake after its merger with the Countryside Commission, and I am sure that it will carry it out with distinction.

I am confident that the needs of the rural areas will be more coherently addressed in the future regional development agencies, whose reporting and accountability mechanisms, as spelt out in the Bill, will be more than adequate. The new clause is unnecessary and would be costly, so I do not support it.

When the Government announced the introduction of regional development agencies early in their programme, there was considerable optimism and support—particularly from rural areas, which felt that, for a substantial period, their needs and requirements had been ignored. The destruction of the public transport system following bus deregulation; the closure of many small businesses in our high streets because of the indiscriminate building of out-of-town shopping developments; and the reduction in the number of post offices and other services made many people in rural areas feel that their livelihoods and way of life were being attacked.

4.45 pm

Since then, the Bill has been published and some of the optimism has been eroded: people increasingly feel that some of the early hopes may not be fulfilled. I hope that the Government will press on. There is no doubt that one of the most important parts of the Bill and the strategy is to address the needs of rural areas in each of the regions. These areas are fundamental to the remit of the RDAs and to the strategies which each and every one of the RDAs will draw up. RDAs will need to ensure that rural areas and their needs are properly addressed.

In many regions, there are significant differences between the different areas. In the south-west, people are aware of the plight of Cornwall, as opposed to the more prosperous areas of Bristol and Swindon. Any large RDA will need to address clear disparities within its region. It would be wise to ensure that the RDAs address the issues not just by drawing up strategies or action plans, but by carrying them out. New clause 1 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can guide, direct and monitor the RDAs. We hear that great words have been spoken and great reports written, but people are looking for action.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is so worrying about the Bill is that very point—the contrast between the prosperity of many of the towns and the great difficulties of the rural areas?

It is the RDAs' role to ensure that that disparity is properly addressed so that, no matter where people live, they have the opportunity to participate in the economic prosperity of their region and of the country.

New clause 1 seeks to ensure that the strategies, directions and policy papers of all the RDAs are translated into action. The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to review those programmes to ensure that action is taken. I understand that the view of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was that the measure was unnecessary and costly, but that is not the case. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Department will ensure that each and every RDA reports regularly—at least annually. That will happen anyway. It will not be beyond the wit of the Department—or cost too much—to bring the reports together into a formal report by the Department, under the Secretary of State, and to lay that before this House.

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. In their response to the Select Committee report, the Government stated that it is a responsibility of the RDA to monitor and to report annually. He is quite right—it will involve no extra expenditure to bring the reports together, as the RDAs have to report precisely on rural matters.

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who reinforces my point. I hope that the advantage will be that rural areas will continue to be considered regularly by hon. Members. We could ensure that plans drawn up and implemented by RDAs were working, and could compare the relative performance of RDAs. There should at least be a competitive edge between them, which would ensure that they do as much as they can and that best practice is used. I hope that the cost would not be huge and that the profile of rural regional affairs would be raised.

Rural areas clearly have special requirements. Firms operating in them are often small; employment is fragile at times, and often seasonal. They will need special assistance to ensure that employment generated by small firms helps those who are looking for new jobs.

Transport is important for people in rural areas. The issue of public transport must be tackled more vigorously if people are to be able to travel to work, visit people and enjoy a social life.

The cost of housing in rural areas must be considered. Although we agree with the Government that green-field sites should not be taken up, policies must address the cost of housing in smaller towns and villages and the problems of second homes.

The social side of rural life is becoming low grade. Low wages and the high cost of transport—or the lack of it—make it difficult for people who live in villages and small towns to lead an active social life.

Those issues, under the guise of sustainable development, must be addressed in the round. Pockets of deprivation, which exist in many rural areas, must also be addressed. The sparsity factor is connected to those issues and must be included in any calculations for provision of services in rural areas.

Overall, we support the principle of establishing regional development agencies. We want to ensure that they are introduced as quickly as possible to address the economic deficit. New clause 1 and amendment No. 1 would not impose additional cost and would raise the profile of the problems of regional rural areas in the House. The functions of RDAs, and their successes and failures, could be properly examined so that the regions of England could move forward positively, not only in urban but in rural areas.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although a number of hon. Members feel disquiet because Front Benchers are able to place their feet on the Table, I acknowledge the tradition. But is it appropriate for Back Benchers to place their feet on the Bench in front of them? I refer, with great respect, to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Surely it is a bad example to set in respect of posture.

:Whatever it is, it is not out of order.

rose—

After that—

Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was responding to the point of order. I have to strike a balance across the House. I was distracted for a moment. I must call an hon. Member from the other side of the House. I call Ms Jenny Jones.

I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 1.

Clause 7 charges regional development agencies with developing economic strategies for their regions. The problem with amendment No. 1 is that nothing in clause 7 suggests that the needs of rural areas will not be met by RDAs. Most, if not all, the nine regions will contain large rural areas. It is for the Secretary of State to ensure that RDAs do their job properly. Clause 7(3)(a) states that RDAs must develop strategies relating to "the agency's area". They cannot help but understand the needs of the rural areas and meet their needs. That is one of the major jobs of the RDAs.

Most regions have strong sub-regional identities. In my region, West Midlands, that is especially so. Last month I went to a large, well-attended conference in the midlands region on the proposed West Midlands RDA. The local authorities, businesses, voluntary sector bodies and colleges from the rural areas—there are large rural areas in the West Midlands region—were well represented and made their case. No one denied the needs of rural areas. There was no dissent. If anything, there was an acknowledgement that, if the West Midlands RDA was to do its job properly, it had to ensure that rural needs were not only properly represented on the board but represented in any strategies. Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary because clause 7 already makes it clear that a regional development agency has to make a strategy for its entire area.

Amendment No. 1 is also potentially divisive because it implies that an RDA will not understand the rural needs of its area. As I have said, if the boards are properly constituted and do their work well in representing the constituents within the areas, they cannot help but represent rural needs.

I rise to support new clause 1 and amendment No. 1 especially in relation to new house building arrangements for rural areas. I am aware that a subsequent amendment deals with RDAs not acquiring specific planning powers, and that the Government intend to accept the amendment, but I am concerned that RDAs will acquire the present structural planning powers of county councils in a new and changed form. When we questioned civil servants in the Department as part of the housing review undertaken by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, they gave the distinct impression that that was the way in which they understood developments would occur.

Yesterday, the citizens of West Sussex presented a petition signed by 28,000 people against the well-known demand by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the building of an additional 12,800 houses. The petition represented only a part of the county.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, last week, representatives of Mid-Sussex district council of all parties, led by myself, presented a petition signed by some 10,000 people, in addition to those who signed the petition to which my hon. Friend refers? It was addressed directly to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street and expressed concern about the appalling consequences of the Labour party's proposals for the rural health of West Sussex.

I thank my hon. Friend. There are, indeed, more to come from all parties.

It is widely believed that the Deputy Prime Minister made the decision on this famous issue not out of the blue but on the advice of the south-east regional office. The advice was given on the ground that, if West Sussex was permitted to get away with it, other county councils within the south-east area would do likewise. It seems to me that the Government office for the south-east is indeed going to be the handmaid and bureaucrat of the new South East RDA. The Government's new-found intent to abolish plan, predict and provide and replace it with manage and consult—more of a bottom-up approach—risks being defeated by RDAs if they drive through broadly regional strategies for housing numbers and force them on county councils by using their increased power. I support the new clause specifically in relation to the subject of housing. The experiment in West Sussex of a bottom-up environmental capacity study is precisely what other county councils should be doing.

In housing and many other matters, citizens relate to their county councils or to their metropolitan districts. The danger is that, in future, central Government will say that they have devolved powers down to RDAs on questions such as the number of houses and where they are to go; county councils and metropolitan authorities will say that they have lost their real power to the RDAs in such matters; and a bureaucratic, undemocratic body in the middle will be driving forward that crucially important issue, about which citizens care passionately.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Conservative Government's rather threadbare record on the use of brown land for development purposes? Despite a 50 per cent. target late in the day, their achievement was 42 per cent. over their whole period in government.

The Labour Government are aiming to achieve 60 per cent. and will probably achieve an even greater proportion. West Sussex was more threatened in the 18 years of the Conservative Government than it will be under the Labour Government of the next 25 years.

First, I am talking about the future, not the past, and, secondly, I am talking about how decisions are to be made. As for the past, the House will be well aware that the proportion of green land that was being used declined. In their last two years in office, the Conservative Government realised the error of the country as a whole in building too much on green land and they went into the election with a specific target.

However, with all due respect, I am not making a party political point. I care passionately about the preservation of our countryside, as, I hope, do Labour Members. I do not want decisions about building on green land to be taken by unaccountable bureaucrats who cannot be got at in the House, or at county council level.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate on new clause 1. It is terribly important that we understand that we are talking about the establishment of a quango and that it is in the nature of quangos that, if one does not set out from the beginning what is intended in terms of their accountability for specific purposes established by Parliament, it is easy for them to pursue their own agenda. Notwithstanding the provision in the Bill for a regional chamber, we have to be clear that it should have particular regard to the purposes agreed by the House during the passage of the Bill.

In East Anglia, there is a substantial rural component, which will be reflected in the regional chamber and, I hope, in the membership of the regional development agency. Even so, there is a feeling that, when the RDA comes to consider the strategy to be established under clause 7, it will be under pressure to deliver targets and measurable outcomes—large numbers of jobs, good figures on inward investment and so on. The RDA's response to that pressure will be to target areas which have the highest concentrations of unemployment, which will tend to be urban areas; and to compete for some of the higher-profile inward investment projects, which, by their very nature, will come from large firms that are essentially interested in locating in or near urban areas and not in rural areas.

One example of a drift in that direction was seen in policing in Cambridgeshire. For a couple of years, Cambridgeshire's crime statistics were not dropping in the same way as other police force statistics from around the country. To restore its reputation as a police force that was succeeding in reducing crime in its area, Cambridgeshire's response was to target resources inside Peterborough and Cambridge—urban areas in which there are relatively high concentrations of crime. The net result is that we do not see police in villages. The same thing will happen in other areas if regional development agencies are allowed to proceed unconstrained to set their own strategies and report on them. They will concentrate on urban areas to the exclusion of rural areas.

In saying that regional development agencies must be accountable to the House, does the hon. Gentleman seek to relegate the importance of regional chambers in influencing the work of the regional development agencies? Is he aware that the regional chamber in the North West is due to meet this week and that it has the full support of all partners in that region, including many partners from rural areas?

I am sure that you will stop me if I elaborate too much on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is an important point. The hon. Lady and other hon. Members must understand that it is not acceptable to establish regional development agencies on a relatively non-accountable basis, with the Secretary of State designating regional chambers as and when he chooses. It is not then sufficient to say that the regional development agencies are not accountable and that regional government is required in order to make them accountable.

Regional government is not desired in East Anglia—or, I suspect, in other regions of England. We require that the regional development agencies be accountable to the House. There must be a structure of accountability—we shall discuss that issue later—for regional development agencies to local authorities. That is my point. The hon. Lady has an interest in local authorities, as do I as an honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I have given way once and time is pressing. Regional development agencies should be increasingly accountable to local authorities. Through that accountability, the agencies will place greater emphasis on rural issues. If they respond only to a regional chamber where rural interests will be once again submerged by a larger body, it will be difficult to identify from the aggregate figures and reports what is occurring in rural areas.

I hope that Labour Members understand that point—I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends do. We can often operate on the basis of aggregate statistics and larger numbers in urban areas, but we cannot do that in rural areas. For example, it is not satisfactory to say that there have been X number of successful projects or that certain organisations have come, by way of inward investment, into a rural area. Such factors tend to affect only one village. It is important to understand—it is a difficult, labour-intensive operation—what is happening in rural areas, village by village.

The requirements of each village may differ. I do not claim that the regional development agencies will be able to report village by village, but the mechanism in new clause 1 and other measures will require the agencies increasingly to have regard to the diverse needs of rural areas. That will involve relationships even with parish councils, because such bodies often have a distinct and entirely legitimate view about what is required in their areas.

I have one other general point. Even if regional development agencies do not have general planning powers, they will none the less be powerful in relation to the acquisition of land and the dispersion of industry. It is important that they understand that they cannot simply try to create jobs in aggregate numbers without recognising the need to balance those jobs in rural areas.

South Cambridgeshire is the fastest growing district in England where there is a heavy emphasis on technological development and high-tech industries. Left to its own devices—a regional development agency may view it as an attractive option—the Cambridge phenomenon could spread to most of the villages that surround the city, and thus create a relatively large number of jobs in those areas. However, those villagers would not necessarily feel that they had been well served if, 10 or 20 years later, the only jobs available were high-tech jobs that were filled by people who had moved into the area for that reason.

If we are to sustain the character of rural areas at a time when there is a relative reduction in jobs in agriculture and related industries, we need to ensure that a balanced set of other jobs comes into the area, such as service jobs and light industrial jobs—jobs that the young people will be able to take, to allow them to remain in the villages.

If we do not, young people without the appropriate skills or qualifications will move into urban areas, and people from urban areas with higher qualifications relevant to high-tech industries will move out into the villages. Once and for all, we shall lose the character of those villages; we shall lose those communities; and we shall lose many of the young people who have a deep understanding of the countryside, of the way in which it works, and of the jobs that have been taken in the countryside in the past.

On that basis, although the Government reject other options—such as a rural development agency, as suggested in new clause 4, or the Rural Development Commission—I find it difficult to see why they resist what is, on the face of it, a modest requirement that the regional development agencies should set out clearly, for report to the House and, if necessary, for debate, how they are responding to the specific and diverse needs of rural areas.

This has been an important debate. Although we rehearsed quite a lot of its substance in Committee, it is good that matters have been raised on the Floor of the House, and I thank hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends, for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) made an excellent speech, showing real understanding of rural issues.

The debate has given us a snapshot of the Conservatives' current thinking, as well as of the position that they adopted in government and the failures of many of their policies. The policies which they relentlessly pursued in government were effective only in creating divisions within the country. They broadened the gap between the rich and the poor, between those with work and those out of work, between the north and the south, and between themselves and the majority of the electorate. That was made clear on 1 May 1997.

The Conservatives' view of life is dominated by the conflict between seemingly irreconcilable opposites—left and right, wet and dry, pro and anti. It comes as no surprise therefore that, throughout, they have tried to base much of their opposition to the Bill on the division that they see between the country and the town—between urban and rural areas. Their amendments to the Bill would only perpetuate those divisions.

The Government, by contrast, believe in diversity, not division. We want to harness the different parts of each region so that they can contribute to increasing regional prosperity overall. We believe in an integrated approach. Of course, there are important differences between urban and rural areas, and our proposals will cater for them; but it is also important to look across regions as a whole. Rural and urban areas do not exist in isolation from one another, and should not be treated as though they do.

Will the Minister give way?

No; I must continue. If the hon. Gentleman had spent less time on points of order earlier, we would all have had more time to contribute to the debate.

We need to understand the specific needs of rural areas, and to address them within an overall framework for each region as a whole.

The Opposition always claim that we do not understand the needs of rural areas; nothing could be further from the truth. As Labour Members have said, we are getting on with delivering on our commitments to build a decent society and tackle the real problems of the rural areas. We are putting more money into health care in rural areas, to treat more patients and set up projects such as night nursing care and nursing and residential homes. The shire counties are receiving £447 million extra in the year ahead, to raise standards and tackle the backlog of school repairs left by the previous Administration.

We are linking every school, however remote, to the information super-highway. We are releasing £900 million from council house sales to provide new social housing and refurbish existing stock, to help to avoid young people having to move away from the village where they were born.

Will the Minister give way?

In a moment.

On that point.

No; I shall give way in a moment.

Our view of those living in rural areas includes rural workers, who will reap the benefit of the national minimum wage.

Does the Minister agree that the credibility of the RDAs will depend on who is appointed to them? Does he agree that part of the problem that the national parks have in their relationship with the wider area is that they do not have on their governing authorities people who command the respect and understanding of those who live in rural areas? Does he agree that it is extremely important that the RDAs have that full rural representation?

When it comes to appointing the RDAs' boards—a subject which I shall discuss shortly—we shall factor in very much the concerns of the rural areas.

The countryside march was mentioned several times in the debate, but it was about ordinary people, from communities throughout the country, coming together to express their fears about the future and to help raise awareness throughout the country of the vital roles that farming and the wider rural community play. To a Government built on belief in the community, that was very welcome. However, in the main the march was about joining up the towns and the country, about which the previous Administration did little.

5.15 pm

The RDAs will be regionwide bodies, responsible for economic development and regeneration of rural as well as urban areas. Those outside London will be given a specific remit to serve the rural areas of their region, and at least one member of their board will be a person with rural knowledge and expertise. By taking on the rural regeneration work currently carried out by the Rural Development Commission, and by having its associated staff transferred to them, RDAs will be able to take a broad view of regeneration needs throughout their areas.

In our White Paper, we said that our strong commitment to rural regeneration would continue to be reflected in the RDAs' funding for rural areas. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raised that point. Rural funds will be separately allocated, to ensure that rural areas' needs continue to be addressed. We shall give RDAs guidance on how they should use their budgets for the rural areas, including the determination of rural areas of need. At least initially, RDAs will take over the RDC's existing regeneration programmes, which are targeted at the priority rural development areas.

Earlier this year, the new chairman of the Rural Development Commission, Miles Middleton, wrote to me, offering the RDC's help in developing guidance to the RDAs. I was very pleased to take up the suggestion, and my officials have been in discussions with the RDC staff about how to take that forward. Despite what Conservative Members may say, we are receiving full co-operation from the RDC in setting up the regional development agencies.

When the Minister said that there would be separate funding for the rural elements within the RDAs, what did he mean? Will the money that comes to an RDA be divided into two piles, as it were? Will there be one specifically earmarked for rural affairs? How will that be defined, and how will the Minister know that the money is spent on such matters? The hon. Gentleman said something that I have not heard him say before, and I should like an explanation.

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The RDC's budget is about £40 million, about £25 million of which goes into regeneration work in rural areas. When matched against what the single regeneration budget covers—we announced the fourth round of the SRB earlier in the week—that pales into a much smaller amount. About £150 million to £200 million of SRB money is going into rural areas, compared with £25 million from the RDC. I am informed that, following the RDC's regeneration work in the rural areas, the RDC's money will be specifically earmarked; I hope that it will be. I believe that the great success of the RDC has been, not the amount of money that it has been given, but the skill that it has shown in levering in public and private money.

We are committed to retaining a focus at national level for expertise, advice and information on rural matters. As has been said, as part of the comprehensive spending review it has been decided that the Countryside Commission will merge with the RDC, to create a new body. I spell that out specifically for the hon. Member for South Suffolk. The new body's remit will include the role regarding expertise, advice and information, and it will also have responsibility for conserving and enhancing the countryside. When it has been set up, the new body will take over from the RDC the role of advising Government on the content of any further guidance to be issued to RDAs in respect of the rural areas. It will also provide a national overview on rural economic and social issues, using information that the RDAs will be required to provide.

One of the main functions of the RDAs will be to produce a strategy for their region, reflecting the five purposes set out in clause 4, which form the heart of the Bill: to further economic development and regeneration; to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness; to promote employment; to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in the area; and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to the area to do so.

One of the objectives of the Bill is wealth creation and tackling the weakness of our competitive base. It may be helpful if I inform the House of the statistics that were made available this week. We were challenged in Committee because we cited the 1993 figures to show that, of the 10 English regions, only two marginally came up to the average of the European regions in gross domestic product per capita.

In the past week, the 1995 figures have been released. Every region in the United Kingdom, and specifically in England, is performing worse than in 1993. The figure for the United Kingdom as a whole has gone down by three percentage points. Gross domestic product per capita has gone down in the north-east by 3 per cent.; in the north-west and Merseyside by 2 per cent.; in Yorkshire and Humberside by 1 per cent.; in the east midlands by 3 per cent.; in the west midlands by 2 per cent.; in the eastern region by 3 per cent.; in London by a staggering 8 per cent; and in the south-east and south-west by 1 per cent.

The hon. Member for South Suffolk said in Committee that, when the new figures came out, they would be considerably better in terms of wealth creation in our English regions, but they are considerably worse. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on that, in the light of what he said so forcefully in Committee. Everything that we said in Committee has been borne out by the statistics, which show our under-performance. Now only London is above the average of the European regions. That is a pathetic performance, and it is the legacy that the Labour Government must address.

The Government made great play of justifying regional development agencies on the ground of the under-performance of British regions compared with those on the continent. Would the Minister be prepared to set a target for the relative performance of our regions compared with those on the continent, to judge whether the RDAs have been a success? Will he tell us what he would expect that relative performance to be five years down the road, so that we can assess whether, by his own standards, RDAs have worked?

As we are creating the RDAs to tackle the competitiveness weaknesses and wealth-creating potential of our regions, we obviously want a better performance than there has been to date. It would not be wise for any politician to set such targets. We must address the legacy of the previous Government and the fact that only London comes up to the average of the European regions in wealth creation. That is poor by any standards.

In light of the up-to-date figures that are now available, it is worth reiterating that even in the region from which I come, the supposedly prosperous south-east, the figures show that there has been a fall. In Committee, the Opposition, particularly the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), argued that the up-to-date figures would show that the RDAs were not required. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his words, as the Opposition case now falls.

My hon. Friend expresses the position succinctly. We shall no doubt return to the matter in our discussion of later clauses.

An RDA's strategy will provide a framework for economic decision-taking in the region and, to be effective, will have to command the support of the regional partners. Clause 4(2) makes it clear that the RDAs' purposes apply equally in rural and in non-rural areas. Therefore, it follows that RDAs' strategies will have to relate to all parts of the region.

Clause 7 provides for the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions to RDAs on various issues that the RDAs should take into account when framing their regional strategies. The clause makes it clear that that may include issues relating not only to an RDA's own area, but to the area of another RDA or to any part of the UK outside England.

Amendment No. 1 would add to that the needs of the rural areas within any region. The amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State would already have powers under clause 7 to issue guidance or directions to RDAs on the necessity to take into account the needs of the rural parts of its region, as rural areas will be part of an RDA's area. We do not wish to create a lengthy and all-encompassing list of issues on which guidance and directions might be issued. The Bill allows for flexibility on issues that might be covered in guidance, and we wish to retain that flexibility.

The amendment would not require the Secretary of State to give guidance on rural issues, nor is there any need for the Bill to do so. On 19 February, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary informed the Committee that it would indeed be appropriate to give RDAs guidance on rural issues. We expect such guidance to cover matters such as how RDAs should assess and monitor rural needs, but there is no need to set that in statute. As I have already said, the RDC is involved in the preparation of draft guidance.

New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to make an annual assessment of the impact of RDAs' activities on rural areas, and would require that assessment to be laid before each House. Again, that is an example of the Opposition singling rural areas out for special treatment, as if they existed in isolation from the region as a whole.

Clause 17 already requires RDAs to submit annual reports of their activities to the Secretary of State. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

This has been a valuable debate, although not for the reasons that the Minister may have imagined.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) reinforced the fears that people have about the effects that regional development agencies will have on the countryside.

The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) recognised the value of the Rural Development Commission's work, but I was sorry that he did not also recognise the value of the White Paper that the previous Government produced on rural England, and the value of the annual update of that White Paper that the previous Government started to produce and the present Government have discontinued.

The hon. Gentleman made an astonishing intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) about housing in West Sussex, apparently ignorant of the fact that the Labour party has joined the Conservatives on West Sussex county council to oppose the Government's decision.

The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) rightly stressed the point that, contrary to some of the Government's claims, the cost of producing a report of the kind required by new clause 1 would be negligible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to the impressive petition signed by 28,000 people, which is powerful evidence of the public concern about the Government's approach to building new homes in West Sussex. He also highlighted the sense of identity that many people feel between themselves and their county. That goes back for generations, or even centuries. It is hard to imagine that that will be replaced by a similar sense of identity between individuals and the South East regional development agency.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) quoted from his direct experience in Cambridgeshire of how resources and effort can be diverted from rural to urban areas.

The Minister claimed that the Government were addressing the needs of rural areas. Let us consider law and order, an issue that is important to many people living in rural areas. This year, as a result of the Government's decisions and the changes that they have made to the formula, the standard spending assessment for the police has been cut in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and Wiltshire—all rural areas. It has been cut in dozens of shire districts, including the one where I am a resident and council tax payer—in Babergh. It has been cut in south Cambridgeshire, Chichester and Cornwall. In every case where the Government have a choice, they favour the urban area and neglect the rural area. This is a Government who are trying to berate their predecessor for creating divisions during their term of office. The Government have embarked on a systematic attempt to discriminate against rural areas.

rose—

I am sorry, but there is no time to give way.

The Minister gave some assurances about the future use of funds previously spent by the Rural Development Commission. I should like to examine that to see exactly what he was saying. I am not sure that the House has had an assurance that the funds will continue to be allocated in full to the rural areas. If we have had such an assurance, we welcome it.

The Minister also referred to some 1995 figures for regional gross domestic product. I will examine those. However, it is scarcely up to date to say that 1995 figures can be used to judge the position in 1998. In any event, they are wholly irrelevant to the question whether the new clause is needed. Nothing that the Minister said has allayed the fear of Conservative Members that regional development agencies are likely to operate to the disadvantage of rural areas, unless the check that we—

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in clause 7, page 3, line 27, at end insert—

'(1A) In formulating a strategy under subsection (1), a regional development agency shall have regard to regional planning guidance for the agency's area.'.

No. 21, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—

'(1B) In formulating a strategy under subsection (1), a regional development agency shall have regard to local authority development plans for the agency's area'.

No. 29, in clause 9, page 4, line 17, after '9', insert—

'( ) It shall be a duty of a regional development agency to set an annual budget before the beginning of every financial year.

( ) An annual budget shall be set under subsection (Al) only after the regional development agency concerned has consulted each local authority within its area.'.

No. 30, in page 4, line 20, after 'the', insert 'other'.

No. 2, in page 4, line 36, leave out 'him' and insert

'the local authorities in the region concerned.'.

No. 3, in clause 10, page 4, line 40, at end insert—

'(2) No grant shall be made under this section in any financial year in which the standard spending assessment of any local authority in the region of the regional development agency concerned has been or is proposed to be reduced.'.

No. 17, in clause 18, page 8, line 19, at end insert—

'(5) As soon as reasonably practicable after a public meeting has been held for the purposes of subsection (2), the regional development agency concerned shall publish a record of that meeting, setting out how it will take account of points raised at the meeting in its activities in the following year, and shall send a copy of the record to the Secretary of State, who shall lay it before each House of Parliament.'.

The new clause would add regional development agencies to the list of public bodies in the schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 and to the appropriate section of the Local Government Act 1972. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are about the need for RDAs to have regard to regional planning guidance and to local authority development plans.

The Liberal Democrats voted for the Bill on Second Reading and broadly welcome it, but we have always had some concerns, which we voiced in Committee. They include the constitution of the boards, the need for RDAs adequately to represent rural areas, which we have just debated, the link with local authorities and regional chambers and the need for openness in the work of RDA boards.

Accountability has informed every one of our concerns. New clause 3 and our amendments attempt to deal with that issue by ensuring that RDA board meetings are as open as possible, given the need to respect commercial and individual confidentiality, and that RDAs have regard to the views and policies of people with a local mandate in planning matters. No one who wants RDAs to succeed—as the Liberal Democrats do—would wish them to come into conflict with the aims of local communities. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would ensure that the chances of that were reduced.

New clause 3 is important in ensuring that RDAs pay real regard to openness. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said:

"Different RDAs may have different ways of reporting back to their regions; some may want much closer contact with the population."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10 February 1998; c. 255.]

That is not good enough. RDA boards may decide that they do not need to consult regional chambers or local authorities to any meaningful extent.

That is why we believe that it is important that the public should be entitled to attend board meetings when appropriate. It is a small measure of openness, but its presence in the Bill would signify that RDAs should pay regard to the principle of accountability and openness in advance of the Government's introduction of a freedom of information Act.

5.45 pm

The new clause does not mean that RDAs would be unable to conduct confidential business without an audience of local people and the press. The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act makes it clear:

"A body may, by resolution, exclude the public from a meeting (whether during the whole or part of the proceedings) whenever publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted or for other special reasons stated in the resolution".

What is important is that there is a presumption that meetings should be open. If the new clause is not accepted, the opening of RDA board meetings will be in the gift of board members, and local electors could do nothing to change the composition of a board that might be unnecessarily secretive. People have a right to know about decisions that are taken by a body that spends public money and which is not directly democratically accountable, but which will have a significant influence on their region's development.

In opposition, the Labour party opposed quangos—we still do—because of their secretive nature, the difficulty of finding out what they were up to, not knowing how appointments were made to quangos and, above all, their lack of a democratic mandate. I know that the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning has expressed his new-found enthusiasm as a member of the Government for quangos. He said:

"There is nothing wrong with quangos."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 January 1998; c. 71.]

I am surprised at the speed of his conversion.

I hope that the hon. Lady will quote what I went on to say in Committee—that we were proud to put on the statute book in 1975 both the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, on which we are modelling RDAs. In the early days, they were also quangos until we were to get an elected Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly; well, I hope that we shall get them. It is in that context that I said that quangos were useful. We did not misuse them, as the previous Administration did, by making them political toys.

I shall come to political toys in a moment.

There is a precedent for non-elected public bodies to hold meetings in public. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Health has already signalled that hospital trust boards should hold their meetings in public. If they should, why not regional development agency boards? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what he thinks is the radical difference between the two.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 concern the RDAs' impact on the planning system. Again, they are concerned with the accountability of RDA boards. The Bill as originally drafted would have allowed RDAs to assume planning powers that usurped the role of democratically elected local councillors. Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Minister's damascene conversion in Committee, and we are pleased that clauses 24 to 27 will be consigned later this evening to the ministerial bin, but I hope that it will not be the recycling bin. However, Liberal Democrats are still worried that proposals for RDAs could seriously disturb the plan-led system.

In their response to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the Government said that there would be

"no hierarchy between Regional Planning Guidance and RDAs' regional strategies"

and that, apparently,

"they will be parallel and complementary regimes, the one influencing the other in an iterative way".

The Government also said that it will

"be open to Ministers to issue guidance or directions".

What form will that guidance take, and will such guidance address the potential for conflict if RDAs promote sites for development that do not conform to policies in regional planning guidance?

Despite lacking a statutory framework in which to develop, regional planning guidance has established some consultation with local people and local representatives. There is a danger that the policies of RDAs—which have not established and demonstrated their accountability to local people—will destabilise that system.

As I said, regional planning guidance has developed through practice rather than a statutory framework. I am concerned that it could be vulnerable to tensions caused by the establishment of RDAs. Amendment No. 20 is designed to address that issue. Today, I should like to hear from the Minister the Government's view on the issue. How will the Government ensure, in their guidance to RDAs, that those potential conflicts do not occur? Do Ministers plan to put RPG on a statutory footing?

Amendment No. 21 deals with the RDAs' potential for conflict with local authority development plans. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has given examples of problems in the north—where, it says, inward investment agencies have promoted sites for economic development with no regard to the agreed regional or local planning framework. Those sites have included green-belt and green-field sites.

RDA regional economic strategies, regional planning guidance, structure plans and local authority development plans each serve different purposes, which means that the potential for conflicting with one another may be even greater. Reliance on "having regard to" or "informing each other" may not ensure compatibility or consistency.

I live in hope that the Government will accept new clause 3 and our two amendments. If not, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the plan-led system will not be overridden by secretive, unelected RDA boards.

I very much agree with the spirit of the comments made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard). Two issues are raised by the new clause and the amendments in this group, tabled by the Liberal Democrats and by ourselves. The first issue is the openness of meetings and the matter of accountability, and the second is the position of local authorities, particularly in financing RDAs.

As the hon. Member for Taunton said, accessibility and accountability are the crucial issues. RDA members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. We do not have to go into all the arguments on that, but that is the position. RDAs will not be elected or directly accountable to the public. If a member of an RDA board is a councillor, for example, he will continue as a board member even if he loses his council seat. Even those who support RDAs deplore the "democratic deficit" implicit in them.

Opposition Members are not convinced by the arguments to establish RDAs. Nevertheless, because of the Government's majority, we accept that the Bill will be enacted. However, if we are to ensure that RDAs are directly accountable—as councillors are to their own electors—it is vital that every opportunity is taken to ensure that the agencies' proceedings are as open and transparent as they can be.

The public have an absolute right to know what is going on in the RDAs, for two reasons. First, RDAs are being financed by public money. It therefore must be right that the public should receive the maximum information about what is being done with their money and in their name. Secondly, RDAs' entire purpose is to serve the public in the regions, not to serve the Secretary of State or the Government—although all the levers of power seem to be exercised by the Government. We want to monitor the agencies' success as they develop.

We have tabled amendment No. 17 in an attempt to ensure that there is some accountability in RDAs' public meetings. We ask that, after a public meeting has been held, the RDA

"concerned shall publish a record of that meeting, setting out how it will take account of points raised at the meeting in its activities in the following year, and shall send a copy of the record to the Secretary of State, who shall lay it before each House of Parliament."

Now, we also have new clause 3, which deals with section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972—which is particularly well known, especially to anyone in local government. Section 100 enables openness in local government, and information to be given to the public and the press—which will disseminate the information to a wider public. As an hon. Member and as a journalist, I support both those objectives.

Section 100 is basically about the right to information in local government. One of our objections to the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill is that it will curtail section 100. The House requires a Second Reading debate on that Bill, so that the issue can be dealt with.

We support new clause 3 because of its effect on regional development agencies. If RDAs are to be appointed bodies—which they will be, at least for the lifetime of this Parliament—they should act openly. Their real responsibility should be not to the Secretary of State but to the public in the regions, which will require the maximum in openness, frankness and accessibility.

Given Ministers' support for the principle of a freedom of information Bill, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be sensible for Ministers—in the spirit of openness, transparency and freedom of information—to accept new clause 3?

I rather hope that, like us, they will accept new clause 3. It would be perfectly sensible for them to do so. If Ministers were still in opposition and we were in government, they—like many Labour Back Benchers, I suspect—would be urging us to accept it. I very much hope that, in the spirit of openness, Ministers will sustain and accept our argument.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) made a serious point. Regional development agencies are bodies appointed not locally but by the Secretary of State, Whitehall and the Government. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government to make RDAs' proceedings as open to the public as possible. If they do not, not only accountability but openness in RDAs' proceedings will be denied.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have had a draconian change of mind. No public access was allowed to the quangos established by the previous Government, which were shrouded in great secrecy. I ask him directly—after his comments, with which I agree, on the importance of regional development agencies in serving the people of the regions—whether he would support direct elections either to the agencies or to the chambers that will hold those agencies to account.

This discussion is going far beyond the scope of the new clause. We have already stated our opposition to the agencies. I am arguing that if we are to have agencies, which we clearly are, given the Government's majority, they should operate as openly as possible. The Government have made it clear that they will do nothing during this Parliament to alter the position. That enables us to monitor closely the agencies' success, which is what we shall do.

Amendments Nos. 29, 2 and 3 seek more definition from the Government of where the money for the agencies will come from. The fear that lies behind the amendments is that elected local authorities' resources will be top-sliced to finance the agencies, which should be separately and discretely budgeted. We are anxious to underline the primacy of local authorities in that respect. It would be wrong for local authorities, and therefore the public, to suffer because the RDAs were taking money away from them. That would disadvantage local people and the regions that the RDAs are meant to serve.

6 pm

Amendment No. 29 would ensure that, before RDAs set their budgets, they consulted their local authorities. Amendment No. 3 would ensure that no grants were made to RDAs in regions where the local authority's standard spending assessment had been reduced that year. The amendment is basically designed to protect the interests of local government, which the Bill threatens in any event. The work carried out by local government will be reduced if the agencies use resources that would otherwise be used by local government. This year, more than 80 local authorities are having their provision cut in cash terms, yet the Government are introducing a new layer of unelected quangos.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when he was in government, he supported top-slicing and quangos meeting outside the public gaze with no record of their meetings, but has now changed his mind on those issues?

This is a new proposition about which I am sceptical. If the hon. Gentleman wants to join us in voting against regional development agencies on Third Reading, I should be happy to see him in our Lobby. We are starting from the premise that the Government are introducing regional development agencies. I am never impressed by such an argument. Now that the Labour party is in government, it has perpetuated certain issues that it opposed when in opposition. For the past 18 years, we have not had regional development agencies—had we had them, the Bill would not have been necessary. We had a better system, which brought a record amount of inward investment into this country.

This discussion may go a little beyond the scope of the new clause and amendments. I am happy to continue it, or to return to the matter on Third Reading. Before the hon. Gentleman crows about RDAs, he should recognise the Conservative Government's tremendous achievement in bringing inward investment to this country.

The amendments aim to get clear guidance on the financing of the RDAs. Do the Government accept that RDAs should not be financed at the expense of local authorities? We are not the only ones to be interested in the answer to that question; local authorities and the general public are interested.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I see consultation taking place on the Government Front Bench, so I shall give way to my hon. Friend and allow it to go ahead.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been at pains to suggest that the RDAs would not simply take unto themselves the responsibilities of local authorities? Does not it follow that they should not take the money from local authorities? I presume that local authorities' responsibilities remain unchanged, and that their financial requirements therefore remain unchanged.

That is exactly what I am trying to get a clear statement about on the Floor of the House. It is a matter of concern in local government and on the part of the general public. If the Minister can make a clear statement that under no circumstances will local government suffer financially and say precisely where the money will come from, everyone will be reassured. It is a double-barrelled question.

The amendments have two themes: first, the financing of the RDAs and the position of local authorities along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) described; and, secondly, the arrangements for the openness of RDAs. Over the years, many people have taken tremendous steps in making local government more open, not least the noble Lady Thatcher when she introduced a series of reforms. We should like to see the spirit of that openness in regional development agencies.

As a former joint chief executive of a regional development company, I have taken a great deal of interest in the Bill's progress through the House, although other commitments meant that I could not serve on the Standing Committee.

Although the Bill is not as far-reaching or radical as I or some members of the Government would have liked, it is a much-needed, solid piece of legislation, which will help to bring about a more strategic approach to economic development in England's regions, and it must be widely welcomed. Nobody who has seen the activities of Scottish Enterprise or the Welsh Development Agency in the past 20 years or more can deny the impact that they have had. In 20 years' time, people will find it unimaginable that the Conservative party could have opposed the establishment of regional development agencies in England.

In my region, the west midlands, all the leading business organisations, local authorities and voluntary organisations have warmly welcomed the Bill. We are now in the business of getting on with making the legislation a reality. Last month, we had a major conference, at which more than 300 organisations were represented. I am doing all I can to ensure that the west midlands has an effective regional development agency.

I share the sentiments behind new clause 3, as it is important that RDAs are seen to be open and accountable. However, I remind the House that RDAs will still have to conform to the code of practice for public bodies. I hope that a freedom of information Bill will be enacted later this year. Other means of accountability are stipulated in the Bill, particularly in clause 18.

I do not want RDAs to be transformed into the equivalent of local authority economic development sub-committees. They should be fleet-footed, commercial, entrepreneurial organisations. They need to be accountable, because they are spending public money, but there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill and the directions and guidelines that Ministers can offer.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that a meeting is open to the public and the press will not stop those involved being fleet-footed and efficient in the conduct of their business? Will the Government's proposed legislation on freedom of information come into force before the RDAs are up and running?

The timing of Government legislation is not a matter for me. We are debating whether there should be a requirement in the Bill, or whether it should be left to RDAs and ministerial guidance. The latter is the preferable route.

The White Paper says on page 54 that some board meetings will be held in open session. It is clear from the White Paper and what was said in Committee that Ministers lay great emphasis on the need for partnership, accountability and consultation. I do not see the problem. Inserting a specific requirement in the Bill is overly restrictive. When they are up and running, RDAs will have a number of open meetings, including open board meetings, but they might also want to hold closed board meetings in which they deal with confidential business. The new clause would create barriers to that.

How would the freedom of information Bill or the provisions set out in the White Paper deliver transparency and openness? The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that that legislation will take into account what we are asking for.

The freedom of information Bill, the requirements in this Bill and the code of practice that public bodies must adhere to will provide sufficient accountability even for the hon. Gentleman.

Local authorities are also governed by legislation on openness for meetings. Would the hon. Gentleman be content with simple generalisations of good will for them, with only an aim for openness that was not governed by legislation?

That is a spurious question. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about completely different organisations. I have absolute confidence that Ministers will be extremely vigilant in ensuring that the public get the information they need on the operation of RDAs, bearing in mind the policy directions and guidance that are issued to other public bodies.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at the moment. I have already given way three times, and the time available for debate is limited.

Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would require RDAs to have regard to regional planning guidance and local authority economic development plans. That is a statement of the obvious. It is almost the equivalent of saying that night follows day.

It is an insult to any economic development professional working for an RDA to remind them to take notice of local authorities or regional planning guidance. The Bill is based on partnership. The RDAs will work closely with other regional bodies and local authorities. The planning process will be iterative. I hope that RDAs will influence local authorities' planning processes, and perhaps local authorities will influence RDAs' planning processes.

6.15 pm

Conservative amendment No. 17 is similar. It would require a record of a public meeting following an annual report to be published and laid before Parliament. I hope that every RDA will adopt consultation procedures to keep Members of Parliament informed of its activities regularly. We might consider setting up regional Select Committees in the House.

The amendment is unnecessary, and misses the point, which is that we are decentralising. Accountability mechanisms should focus primarily on the regional and local level. I am sure that Members of Parliament will want to know what RDAs do.

The other four amendments relate to money. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 also state the obvious. They would require an RDA to consult local authorities before setting its budget. We want a partnership approach. Of course local authorities will be consulted. We do not need such a requirement in the Bill.

Amendment No. 2 provides for the unlikely circumstance of an RDA producing a capital or revenue surplus, which a Minister decides should be transferred to the Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a minute. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman what the Conservative amendment says. It says that a surplus of an RDA may be transferred—not back to the Government, which provided the money in the first place, but to local authorities.

That may be a convenient peg on which to hang the whinge of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) about local authorities, but it is bare-faced cheek for a party that spent 18 years trampling on the interests of local authorities to have the gall to say that any RDA surplus should go to local authorities. That is a pathetic attempt to show that the Conservatives are interested in local government when they clearly are not.

Talking of pathetic attempts, the hon. Gentleman has talked about trusting the Minister and being sure that he will not do anything wrong. What is the point of having a Bill? Why do we not give complete power to the Minister? If no provisions should be added to the Bill, what is the point of the debate? What is the point of trying to protect people's freedom?

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament longer than me. I am sure that he knows that primary and secondary legislation and policy guidance and directions from Ministers are part of the way in which this country is governed.

It is our duty as Members of Parliament to scrutinise legislation. We must be confident that legislation is robust and transparent, and that it has proper mechanisms of accountability. That is true of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting otherwise. The amendments merely state the obvious. They are wrecking amendments.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at the moment.

Amendment No. 3 demands that the Government should not give RDAs any money if, for whatever reason, any standard spending assessment of any local authority has to be reduced. I understand the debating point behind the amendment, but I cannot imagine that, as a Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield would ever have countenanced such legislation.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall finish my point, and then I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he persists.

SSAs could conceivably change over time for a number of reasons. There might be changes in SSA methodology or in local authority boundaries and responsibilities. To put such a requirement in the Bill would—

We should trust the Minister.

No, the issue is that such a requirement would shackle an RDA if any Government—this one or any subsequent one—changed the SSA funding formula or local authority boundaries and responsibilities. The whole basis of legislation for grant-aiding and funding RDAs would fall. That is obviously ridiculous.

The hon. Gentleman's argument against the amendments comes down to one word: partnership. Does he not understand that there are circumstances in which the RDA may be in conflict with local authorities in its area? That is why we want to lay statutory duties on the RDA to consult on, for example, its budget. Does he not understand mat we want to do so because we want to regulate relationships between different statutory bodies?

It is quite true that RDAs may, from time to time, fall out with local authorities, just as local authorities, from time to time, fall out with each other. That does not mean that the requirement to consult, which will be in ministerial guidelines and is already in clause 18, or the code of practice for public bodies will suddenly disappear. There are sufficient mechanisms for consultation to reassure even the most sceptical Conservative Member.

In the west midlands, we have been competing head to head as a region with Baden-Wũrttemberg in Germany and Emilia-Romagna in Italy. In comparison, our gross domestic product per head has declined. They now have a 40 per cent. advantage over us. We stand at 90 per cent. of the EU regional average. That is not good enough; it is an appalling legacy of 18 years of Conservative neglect of the regions. This Government want to change that. I have no doubt that the Bill will play a major part in helping to narrow the gap between GDP in the west midlands and other English regions and our European competitors. I commend it to the House.

If anyone else mentions an iterative process in this debate, I shall take an early recess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Minister and I may be the only two people in the House who are not quite sure what it is. All I can say is that it is not much used in Yorkshire, and I hope that it will not become much used in the House. Management-speak has crept into the Chamber. Why does not the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) say "discussion" instead of "iterative process", if that is what she means?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was correct to raise the issue of local authority funding and its relationship with regional development agency funding. The RDAs, as such, will have very little money; the funding streams diverted to them are relatively small. Therefore, unless they are able to work as part of a broader strategy with local authorities, their impact will be quite minimal. It follows that there needs to be some stability in funding flows, from wherever they come.

There is a great deal of uncertainty at the moment about local authority funding, over both how and in what shape it will be delivered. We all know the basic facts about what is happening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and my hon. Friends are right in saying that there has been a diversion of funding effectively towards northern metropolitan local authorities.

In fact, however, funding has been diverted from inner London as well. That is due to adjustment in economic factors and indicators for elderly residential care and social services. That has meant—we debated this in relation to the countryside—in North Yorkshire, for example, a 13.4 per cent. increase in band D council tax bills. If the Government raise the capping limit but do not provide the money to follow, as night follows day council taxes will increase.

Local government finance is very much at a watershed at the moment. The Government have issued a series of papers on the future of local government. Three more papers—a slightly ambitious trilogy—were published at the beginning of this week, the most important of which was about the future of funding and the Government's decision in practice to fund capping. They are proposing to make no change to SSA methodology for two years and to divert staff resources into a more fundamental view of the way forward in SSAs. That opens the way eventually for some quite radical changes in the way in which funding is directed toward local government, which are bound to have an effect on the way in which strategies can be delivered between local government and development agencies.

We are supposed to have regional chambers in order to monitor, work in partnership and keep an eye on RDAs. We will have a regional chamber in London if the people of London vote for a mayor and an authority. The Government say that, in future Parliaments—if they are still in a position to do so—they will introduce regional chambers elsewhere, but for the moment, such regional chambers will effectively be quangos at one remove from the electorate.

Two other Government policies are crucial. The first is that the Deputy Prime Minister wants us to develop on what we can no longer call brown-field sites—we must use some more euphemistic expression. If he is to be logical about that, he must recognise that it costs a great deal more to develop an inner-city brown-field site than a suburban or green-field site. There would be intellectual and financial logic in funding flows that reflect that increase, because it is bound to have an enormous impact on the relative distribution of funding in, for example, Yorkshire, Humberside and the north-east in comparison with the south-west, simply due to the geographical positions of those regions.

The second policy concerns the fact that the Government, like their predecessors, have spent much time trying to solve the riddle of the area cost adjustment. If they were to do so, it would have a significant impact on where money is directed in local government. It would, for example, cause a tremendous cut in resources—I use the word "resources" although I prefer the word "money" because it is more direct—going to Cornwall, which would be a major sufferer. That would impact on the ability to deliver the regeneration programmes of the partnerships about which we are talking. The degree to which RDA spending and local government complement one another is important.

The pattern of local government expenditure in the shires is fairly consistent. Local authorities tend to underspend on highways, which is, after all, quite an important development matter, but tend to spend above their SSA on education, simply because many choose that as a priority. Many of us would not quarrel with that.

In addition, there is not only a review of local government expenditure and a review of regeneration policy expenditure—the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, who is in charge of that, is no longer in the Chamber—but a fundamental spending review. That review will have an impact on the funding available for other parts of local authority expenditure that, although they do not flow through the revenue support grant, are none the less crucial to regeneration and to the broader development process. Housing expenditure, including funding for the housing benefit system, is one example.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is therefore correct to say that one cannot discuss the development agencies in their own right as autonomous bodies, without reference to their immediate hinterland in terms of governmental and financial institutions. They must work under a common strategy, yet there is much uncertainty associated with local authority funding now, and a real possibility of quite a radical change.

There may well be justification for a change; I do not condemn it in advance. There may be a good argument for redirecting the flows of local authority funding. However, the regional development agencies would then be set up on a foundation that could begin to change almost immediately they were established. The House needs to take note of that possibility, and I am grateful to my right hoh. Friend for tabling an amendment that has enabled us to do so.

The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) made an interesting speech. At a certain stage of our political careers we all go through a toady phase—although I would like to think that even when I was going through mine I would not have made such a speech. I do not mean that rudely, but the hon. Gentleman would have been wise to duck out of the Tea Room when the Whips were looking around for a Labour Member to make a speech.

The hon. Gentleman's arguments were the same as those that were used to support the idea that local authority and health authority meetings should not be open to the public. The essence of the argument is, "Trust the Minister; he will do no harm," but I do not favour that argument. [Interruption.] I see that my Whip is leaving the Chamber.

There is much criticism in the press these days about the role of the Chamber and the new presidential style of government. People say that the House of Commons does not matter any more. If the House is to mean anything, we must be able to hold the Executive to account. Therefore, we must be able to put things on the face of the Bill.

We should not start from the proposition that we may occasionally have the odd open board meeting, with members of the public being brought in, given a cup of tea and allowed to sit down and listen to our deliberations, like an open day at a hospital or school. It is not acceptable to say that we can take care of the democratic deficit in that way. We should not start from the idea of holding meetings in secret but with certain exceptions, when meetings will be held openly. We should turn the argument around and say that meetings will be open to the public unless there is a compelling reason why people cannot observe them.

What could those compelling reasons be? Commercial confidentiality is obviously one, but a sensible authority could organise business so that the discussion about economic regeneration would be held in public, while the names of the firms were kept private. What other reason could there be? There could be a need to protect the rights of individuals and to keep confidential information private—but in a sensible process, that too could be planned for, so that the substantial discussion could take place in public, and private matters concerning individuals would be dealt with in private.

A few years ago, when I was a councillor, I, with others, started the experiments that eventually led the Government to legislate on opening our deliberations to the public. Now there is a tendency for local authorities to rest on their laurels and to try to ensure that, as well as the official power structure through the committees, there is another power structure inside local authorities.

Most people looking at the structure of a council would see the full council on the top, with the various committees and sub-committees underneath. Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that members of the public can almost always attend the sub-committees, the committees and the full council. As my right hon. Friend said, one of our concerns about the experimental local government arrangements is that they will deny the public access to deliberations.

However, inside local authorities, as is the case inside most political parties, there exists an informal power structure whereby, by the time matters arrive at a sub-committee, they are already determined and set in concrete, so the sub-committee has no chance of making a substantial change. We believe that it is time to open up regional development agencies and local authorities to ensure that the public have access to wherever the informal discussions take place.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's proposals for modernising local government, with the talk of Cabinet government and of different structures of government, may, depending on how they are managed, tend towards more closed government rather than more open government?

My right hon. Friend is right. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that we should have a Second Reading debate on the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, so that such matters could be discussed on the Floor of the House as a matter of principle.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about opening up meetings and open government, but as he mentioned health authorities, may I ask him whether he protested when a previous Government introduced changes into the health service that had the effect of closing meetings of health authorities and trusts?

Yes, I did. That is a matter of public record; I have a record of supporting freedom of information, and I believe that it is important. Just because a Conservative Government had approved something, I would not stand up when we were in government and say, "Trust the Minister; he is a nice person; he will do nothing wrong." That essentially is the argument that Labour Members have advanced.

My hon. Friend did not have, as I had, the privilege and honour of serving on the Standing Committee. Is he aware that the Government originally took a different position on some parts of the Bill? Is not the fact that Ministers and the Government have changed their minds on key clauses a prime reason to ask why on earth, if they cannot make up their minds and settle on a policy while the Bill is in the process of going through Parliament, we should trust such a Minister?

My hon. Friend is right. We cannot rely on individual Ministers' discretion to look after everything. There are individual rights. After all, the Government are about to legislate on the declaration of human rights. If they do not think it important to enshrine rights in law, perhaps we should simply go back to the proposition supported by the hon. Member for Dudley, South, and simply trust the Government.

Why not table an amendment to that effect?

As the Whip, from a sedentary position, says, no doubt the Government would welcome an amendment to that effect. Every clause would simply say, "This House unreservedly trusts the Government to do the right thing." There would be no scrutiny and no consideration of individual rights.

Yet contained within the Bill are immense powers over economic affairs, and powers to take away individuals' property. Those powers should be out in the public domain. Public bodies should be open. We are setting up what will probably be the most powerful quangos ever set up by the House, yet essentially they will be poodles of the Secretary of State. Moreover, we shall soon see regional assemblies that are also poodles of the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend has hit upon an important point, closely bound up with the new clause. The truth about the Bill, which came through to me strongly in Committee, is that, rather than being based on the idea of creating new development in different areas, it is an excuse for foisting regional government on this country. The Bill is a blind, designed to hide the facts from the people of this country. Is that not what it is all about?

After the sensible decision to remove the planning powers and some of the provisions on employment and education, little is left in the Bill—the measures will have to operate through other players. All that is left is a form of regional government.

My hon. Friend suggested that the RDAs would be mighty quangos, but I suggest that he has not read the proposals for the Food Standards Agency. If he were looking for a position of real power, he might choose to serve on that body.

My right hon. Friend is right to tick me off. As soon as the debate is through, I shall read up on the Food Standards Agency—perhaps he will spend some time taking me through the major points. I shall rephrase what I said: the RDAs are the most powerful quangos of which I was aware. However, I do not think that it matters whether they are the most powerful or the second most powerful—they are still powerful.

The hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) made a particularly important point about the appointment of members to the agencies—that they will rely on the Secretary of State's good will. If elected councillors who are members of the agency are defeated at an election, they can remain as members.

I have some experience of such situations; regardless of how diligent or conscientious councillors are, their primary purpose in serving on a board—to represent their electors or their authority—disappears when they lose an election. I believe that a defeated councillor should step down. It is ridiculous to trust the Minister to decide whether such a person should remain in power.

Open government is also important in this instance, because we are establishing new quangos. RDAs should be set up on the basis of good principles—on the presumption that their meetings will be open to the public. As we are starting something, we should at least get it right.

The relationship between economic regeneration and planning will be anomalous. The various planning conferences will, we are told, have a much longer planning horizon than the RDAs—they will have to look 10 to 20 years ahead. The RDAs will operate under them, and the local authorities will operate more practically under the RDAs. If the regional planning and local authority meetings are open, why should RDA meetings, which lie in the middle, be held in secret, especially as RDAs will have enormous powers over individuals in terms of compulsory purchase and land assembly?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said, we should also be clear where the money will come from. I think that top slicing has already occurred; the money for shire and district authorities has been reduced. I hope that the Government will accept new clause 3, to ensure that the RDAs are put on a proper democratic footing.

I want to deal with some of the points made by Labour Members about openness. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) said that Conservative Members' concerns about the Bill were belated. As a new Member of Parliament, my concern is not belated—I have a genuine concern for the present and for the future.

My constituency will be part of the new West Midlands regional development agency, but I have not detected unmitigated public enthusiasm for the new body. As a participant in the West Midlands Regional Economic Consortium, which has acted almost as a precursor to the RDA, I have seen evidence that has given me real grounds for concern.

6.45 pm

I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) to a document produced by the WMREC, which illustrates the source of my concern. The document is an interpretation of the integrated transport system—another Government initiative—in our region. It concludes that the need for improved rural transport in the west midlands is of "lesser concern". I represent a constituency with a mix of rural and urban areas, so that gives me great concern about what will happen when decisions pass to the regional tier and the rural interest is diluted by the majority concern of the urban areas.

The document also expresses the WMREC's support for the expansion of Birmingham International airport. My constituency is part of the Solihull borough, in which the airport also falls. The hon. Member for Dudley, South will perhaps know that the carefully drawn development plans for the airport—which I concede is of regional significance—were born of hard-won negotiation about the erosion of the green belt. I know that the Solihull local government representatives are greatly concerned that their minority view will be subsumed under the urban-dominated RDA.

The hon. Lady has set a number of hares running, and I think that I should correct her on some points. First, the West Midlands Regional Economic Consortium is committed to ensuring that the integrated transport system has an effective rural dimension; indeed, it flagged it up as an issue on which to lobby. It also wanted the RDA to be stronger. Proposals for Birmingham International airport have gone, and will always go, through the usual planning process. The WMREC identified nothing in the Bill that would change that in any way.

The meeting about the airport was an important guide to where the priorities lie. My constituents and the Solihull local government officers fear that they will have a minority voice in an urban-dominated RDA; nothing that I have heard has allayed my present and future concerns.

That is why I strongly endorse the new clause, which would formalise a process of consultation, which is one of the only securities that elected officers in local government have at present to ensure that the views of the local community that they represent are adequately taken account of by the new RDA.

Would my hon. Friend be happy for deliberations on priorities for local areas to be held behind closed doors, or would she prefer to ensure that her electors can hear the discussions?

I am grateful for that intervention, because I have grave concerns about the lack of openness in creating a powerful quango comprising a board of 12 members including, as the Secretary of State assures us, only one representative to take account of rural interests. That quango, meeting in camera, will have to respond adequately to the proper democratic process, which can be expressed only at the ballot box.

As the legislation stands, the only way in which my constituents can manifest their concerns about the newly created quangos is indirectly, through local government and parliamentary elections. The Bill does not ensure adequate accountability so that the views of my constituents and others in the borough will be taken into account in extremely important decisions.

Sometimes, when a group of amendments is under consideration, one singles out one and commends it, while perhaps damning the others with faint praise, but this is not such an occasion, because the new clause and the amendments would all, in their various ways, improve the Bill.

I intend to be brief, because we have heard no coherent argument from Government Members against the propositions severally advanced in the new clause and the amendments, so we must give the Minister time to accept them, or to explain more cogently she he should not do so.

We all know that there are circumstances in which non-departmental public bodies have to exercise their functions without full public accessibility, and the same will no doubt apply to regional development agencies. I know from personal experience at the Department of Trade and Industry that it would be impossible to undertake the necessary negotiations on inward investment, for example, in a publicly accessible body.

There will certainly be circumstances, however, in which the agency does not undertake an executive or administrative task, for which policy is established by others, but is itself a policy-making body, establishing what may be a more significant policy for its region than some of those determined in county council chambers, which are rightly open to the public. The desire for an agency's meetings to be accessible to the public is entirely consistent with that.

When an agency is formulating its strategy, we should not simply rest on clause 7 and the guidance to be issued by Ministers, but set that alongside the views of local authorities as expressed in their development plans. There is an inherent danger that the guidance offered by the Secretary of State will be strategic and of general application, whereas in many instances it will have to be implemented alongside the specific considerations of individual districts or even smaller areas, as laid out in development plans.

For example, regional development agencies will often want to bring specific projects to their region and they may do that by designating in their strategy certain areas where it would be desirable for such projects to go. It would be inherently undesirable for an agency to specify a project that it wants to attract, and to designate some areas where that project should go, in pursuance of departmental guidance but in contradiction to some of the underlying principles either of the regional planning guidance or, more particularly, of local development plans.

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning may shake his head and say that that will not happen, but we will go on to debate some of the issues, and I suspect that there will be circumstances in which the regional development agency tries to pre-empt the local authority's development plans and impose some of its own strategic ideas. It would be much better for the agency's intentions to take explicit account of the local authority's democratically determined development plans.

If the regional development agency is to pursue functions that are additional to those of local authorities and to add value—the Local Government Association questioned whether it would add value, and I confess to being sceptical on the subject—it should do so on the back of a budget that does not detract from the value of local authority activities.

The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) spoke about the difficulties of standard spending assessment methodology, but that is not a great problem. It is a requirement laid on the Government to compare SSAs on an equitable basis, year on year. In counties and shire districts such as South Cambridgeshire, where the SSA has been reduced by £350,000, reductions have taken place even when the demands laid on the local authority have increased.

My constituents may well wonder of what value it is to them to have their services cut to provide money for a regional development agency that will simply devise strategies and leave it to the local authority to try to implement them. They would regard that as unacceptable. New clause 3 would, quite rightly, lay on the Government an obligation not to proceed down that path and set budgets for regional development agencies while undermining local authorities by cutting their grant.

We have had an interesting debate about the accountability and openness of regional development agencies and their relationship with local authorities, and about local authority lead strategies, including planning guidelines. There has been some confusion between economic and land use planning, which are entirely distinct and have different systems attached to them.

It is important for the Government to get the balance right between the devolutionary principles that lie behind the Bill—taking powers down to the regions—and turning round and being terribly prescriptive about how the powers are used. We do not want to resort to the bad old ways and be over-prescriptive about how the devolved powers are used. We had many interesting discussions about that in Committee.

The Government are as keen as ever to move quickly to implement our manifesto commitments on the regional agenda in England. We know that the interests of the English regions have been neglected for too long and we aim to reverse that neglect. Our first step is to establish regional development agencies to provide for effective co-ordination of economic development and social regeneration, in partnership with local organisations.

Some Conservative Members have wrongly suggested that we want to convert regional development agencies into a form of local authority. They are economic development agencies, with the five core aims that are set out in clause 4. They are similar to Scottish Enterprise and the Welsh Development Agency, and I did not hear the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), when his party was in government, complaining that the meetings of those bodies were not open to the public. He must not mix up local authorities with what are essentially economic development agencies. Later, I shall explain how the Bill gives far more provision for openness than any Bill before it.

If the Scottish and Welsh bodies had had any effect on Essex, I would have taken enormous interest in them being open to the public. The Minister seems to believe that some RDA meetings should be open. Will she define which should be open and which should not?

We do not want to be too prescriptive at a national level, but I shall come to that in due course.

RDAs and their links with regional chambers, and our proposals for reform of the regional planning process are a first step in an evolutionary process which will lead to the English regions being able to choose a greater measure of decentralisation.

There is a lot that we believe we can do now within the present democratic structures to build up the voice of the regions by building on the informal structures that the regions themselves are setting up. Local authorities are already coming together with businesses and other partners to form regional chambers to create a more integrated regional voice. Progress is being made in all regions. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was present at the launch of a regional chamber in Yorkshire and the Humber.

RDAs will be required to take full account of regional interests. Organisations representing such interests—and, above all, the democratically elected local authorities— can expect to contribute to the work of the RDA. We intend that regional chambers should provide a mechanism for meaningful consultation.

The Bill provides a framework within which the RDA will have regard to views expressed by the chamber in the formulation and review of its economic strategy, and it will allow the RDA to consult the chamber on the exercise of its other functions, to provide information, to answer questions and to give an account of itself to the chamber. This, we believe, will give the chamber not only a powerful voice in the regions, but influence over the work of the RDA itself. Chambers provide a mechanism for the representatives of local government—who will be in the majority in the chamber—to exercise this influence.

The hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) mentioned that the Secretary of State for Health recently announced that health authority meetings were to be in public. He did not do that by putting it in a Bill in primary legislation—he merely announced it. This is what we are doing with the RDAs.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would place a requirement in the Bill for the RDAs to have regard to regional planning guidance, which we propose will still be within a local authority framework. There has been some misunderstanding that somehow RDAs will have direct planning powers. By removing clauses 24 to 27, we have taken all planning powers away from RDAs. They do not have those powers, which rest with the democratically elected local authorities—where they will stay.

One might have gained the impression from listening to some of tonight's speeches that, somehow, RDAs could run roughshod over local authorities and proceed without planning permission. That is not the case. They will need planning permission for any regeneration project. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar went on about this, but his Government's record in this matter was not ausplcious. The urban development corporations had planning powers, were not open to the public and were anti-democratic. They were a creation of the previous Government.

One of the core functions of the RDAs will be to develop and implement a regional strategy in relation to its five purposes, and clause 7 provides for this. In many respects, this process of developing and implementing their regional strategies will be the main role of RDAs. Although there has been much good economic work done in our regions for many years—such as the development of regional competitiveness strategies—no one body has been charged with pulling together all the various strands, co-ordinating, in a way that commands consensus across the whole region, the effort that people are devoting to economic development initiatives. We want the RDAs to do this.

It will be essential that there is a close relationship between the RDAs' regional strategies and other strategic work at the regional level, including regional planning guidance, which sets the regional strategic framework development plans.

Regional planning guidance and the RDAs' strategies will clearly have to be related, but they have different purposes. It is important that the messages of both are compatible and consistent. However, the relationship will not be hierarchical. RDAs' regional strategies will have to have due regard to regional planning guidance. That is the structure within which they will work.

In turn, through the work and the advice they will be able to give, RDAs will have a vital input in the review of regional planning guidance. It is right that the planning framework should remain in the democratic process— where it will stay—but it would not be sensible for RPG, approved by the Secretary of State, to ignore the economic needs of a region as identified in the regional strategy. Thus, integration of these two areas of work is vital, but neither will have predominant importance. They will be parallel and complementary regimes. Those developing strategic thinking will need, on both sides, to have regard to the views and needs of the other—a slightly different way of working, but one which we believe will be more effective.

The relationship between RPG and the RDAs' regional strategies is an important one to get right. I understand the concern that has been expressed that, in the absence of a formal hierarchical arrangement, there is a danger that the two strategic documents will not be consistently drawn up. However, as in the case of the other areas in which the work of the RDA will have to take account of national policies—such as skills policies—it will be open to us to give guidance or directions to RDAs, if needed, about how they should take account of RPG in developing their regional economic strategies.

I should point out that we have not put a specific list in clause 7 about matters to which RDAs should have regard in drawing up their regional strategies. We do not want to do this; however lengthy and wide-ranging the list might be, it could limit flexibility to respond to new policy developments. This is a matter that we can deal with through subsection (2), which allows for the Secretary of State to give guidance and directions if necessary.

Amendment No. 21 refers to the relationship between the RDAs' regional strategies and local development plans. We do not believe that it is necessary to have a statutory requirement for RDAs to have regard to local development plans in devising their regional strategies.

Will the Minister give way?

I have hardly any time left, and I want to deal with all the amendments if I can.

At present, a local planning authority is required by statute to have regard to the local development plan and decisions are to be made

"in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise".

The RDA, like any developer, will have to apply for planning permission as appropriate. It follows that an RDA will not only have regard to local development plans; it will have to comply with them if its economic strategy is to succeed. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are unnecessary, as the provisions that they propose are either already in place, or will be covered better by guidance.

Amendment No. 29 would place a new duty on RDAs to produce an annual budget and to consult local authorities on it. This amendment is unnecessary. As non-departmental public bodies, RDAs will be required to produce a corporate plan which will be agreed by the Government. The annual budget will be presented to Parliament in the Department's annual report and will be monitored by Ministers.

We must not lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, the corporate plan is a working document between central Government—who will be providing the RDA with its funds—and the RDA. It is therefore a document that will primarily be a matter for them to determine. None the less, the corporate plan will reflect the RDA's economic strategy, which will be determined by the RDA in full consultation with the region and the chamber.

The Bill provides a framework within which we expect the RDA to consult the regional chamber on its corporate plan. We do not propose to extend this to local authorities in the area, as it is our intention that those authorities, along with other regional partners, will be represented— indeed, predominant—in the chamber. If, however, it became apparent that a suitable chamber was not to be established, we could issue guidance and directions on the RDAs' consultation with regional interests—including local authorities—on both its corporate plan and economic strategy.

Amendment No. 30, which is consequential upon amendment No. 29, is also unnecessary.

Clause 9 allows the Secretary of State to set the financial duties of the RDAs and to recover surplus money from RDAs. The same power is available to the Secretary of State in respect of English Partnerships— again, Conservative legislation—but it has never been used. I hope that the power in clause 9(4) as drafted would also not need to be used in respect of RDAs.

RDAs will be non-departmental public bodies, which normally receive grant in aid from the Government each month to ensure that they do not carry large amounts of public funds at the start of the year which the Government could use for other purposes, and that public funds are used in the most efficient way. Despite that, however, a body could still acquire surplus funds, if, for example, a large project was delayed or more receipts than expected were collected. In such circumstances, the most efficient use of funds is to return them to the centre to be used for other programmes.

Amendment No. 2 would require surplus funds to be paid to the region's local authorities, which is simply not appropriate. RDAs will receive funding from central Government, and it is right and proper that it be repaid to the Government if it is not used.

Clause 10 enables the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, to pay RDAs grant in aid, which will be their main source of income.

Amendment No. 3 would provide that the Secretary of State could not pay grant in aid to an RDA if the standard spending assessment of a local authority in the region had been or was proposed to be reduced. The hon. Member for Taunton perhaps seeks an assurance that we shall not reduce central Government funding for local authorities to increase the budgets of RDAs. We are happy to give such an assurance. Local authority funding is a separate issue: RDA funding comes from the single regeneration budget, from the budget for English Partnerships, and from the budget for the Rural Development Commission. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) should not confuse them.

Unlike the previous Government, we are only too pleased to give assurances to local government. The budgets of RDAs will, like the programmes, be inherited from Government offices for the regions; they will not come from funding for local government. A standard spending assessment is the Government's view of net revenue expenditure which it is appropriate for a local authority to incur to provide service consistent with that across all local authorities. It is calculated by formulae which use objective measures. The amendment would mean that no funding would be paid if SSAs went down because of population change, which would cause anarchy. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is suggesting anarchy—but times are strange.

New clause 3 and amendment No. 17 cover the openness with which RDAs should operate. The Government want greater openness, better accountability and improved effectiveness in the conduct of the business of non-departmental public bodies, as we made clear in our consultation paper "Opening up Quangos"—we want RDAs to lead the way. We have also published our proposals for ending secrecy surrounding government in our White Paper, "Your Right to Know".

We are sympathetic to the intention behind new clause 3, but it is not appropriate for it to be in the Bill. The matter will be dealt with in the usual way by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and our proposed freedom of information Bill will apply to all legislation. We shall also issue guidance saying that RDAs should be as open as possible—we hope and expect that they will be—but we shall not put that in the Bill.

This has been an interesting debate. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), it could even be described as an iterative process.

Liberal Democrat Members welcome the support of the official Opposition, who have said that they shall vote in the same Lobby as us on new clause 3. I shall be careful to make my points without upsetting them so much that they do not join us, but the road to Damascus has been incredibly busy recently.

In government, the Conservatives set up many non-departmental public bodies, or quangos, which were not accountable to local people and did not have to meet in public. My local training and enterprise council has placed the minutes of its meetings in public libraries and sent them to local people such as the Member of Parliament only since the change of Government, although it still does not meet in public.

Although we are delighted to accept the support of Conservative Members on new clause 3, we are most disappointed that the Conservative party and the Labour party have swapped sides on this issue. We had hoped for better from a Government who say that they are committed to openness and democracy. We should have anticipated the Under-Secretary saying, "The Government are sympathetic to new clause 3, but."

The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) mentioned reasons for not including certain matters in the Bill, which boiled down to something being blindingly obvious or too restrictive. In an idle moment, I studied the Bill. Clause 14 states:

"A regional development agency shall—

keep proper accounts".

I would have thought that that was blindingly obvious.

I must wrap up, so I shall be brief. New clause 3 would put RDAs in the same category as other public bodies with respect to admission to meetings, and in the same category as local authorities with respect to openness of proceedings, which would have to take place in public unless commercial or confidential matters were being discussed.

I am disappointed that the Government are unable to accept a simple new clause on openness and democracy, and I hope that some Labour Members will change their minds at the last minute and join us in the Lobby.