House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Dec 1991

Hansard

House of Commons

Friday 6 December 1991

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PETITION

RU486 Drug

9.34 am

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I beg to present a petition against mifegyne, which is known as RU486, to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled from Father Michael Hopley of St. Benedicts Parish, Ealing Abbey in his name and in that of Agnes Grist of 142 Argyle road, W13 in my constituency, from many other of my constituents and others who live beyond my constituency but in the parish of Ealing Abbey. The humble petitioners of Ealing Abbey showeth

"that we the undersigned wish to note with regret that the Abortion Pill mifegyne (known as RU486) has been granted a product licence. We believe that drugs and medicines should be used only to save life. We deplore the fact that this drug causes the death of unborn human beings and we express our grave concern that it will damage women physically and psychologically."

As one who believes that life exists from the moment of conception and is in the image of Christ, I support the petition and am opposed to anything that damages life in the way in which this pill is alleged to do.

The petition states :

"Wherefore, your petitioners pray that your honourable House, which is committed to upholding respect for human life and protection of the weak and vulnerable, will do everything possible to prevent the distribution and use of mifegyne (known as RU486) and any other drugs which, like it, are produced with the deliberate intention of destroying innocent human life. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c."

To lie upon the Table.

Column 512

Regional Government (England)

9.36 am

Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : I wish to call attention to the need for regional government in England, and I beg to move, "That this House deplores the excessive centralisation of government in the United Kingdom since 1979 and the failure to decentralise and devolve power to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom ; notes that this is in direct contrast to the general trend towards decentralisation evidence elsewhere in Europe ; furthermore deplores the severe cuts in the regional assistance budget since 1979 together with the failure to enact dynamic and effective regional economic policies which would have promoted balanced economic growth and prosperity ; expresses alarm at the regional divisions which continue to characterise the United Kingdom economy ; and considers that the creation of a regional tier of government in the English regions as well as national devolution to Scotland and Wales is now vital to the United Kingdom's future economic and political well-being.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this subject which has interested me for a long time. The privilege of addressing the House on a Friday morning and of winning the ballot to present a private Member's motion is, however, something of a mixed blessing for hon. Members like myself who represent constituencies a long way from London. We often look forward to Fridays as a day that we can spend with our constituents.

None the less, I am delighted that many of my hon. Friends who I know have a keen interest in the subject of regional government are in their places this morning. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends find it frustrating that regional issues are seldom debated in the House. That is something which we should like to be changed in the future. Unfortunately, regional policy could hardly be described as one of the current Government's priorities. I believe that that is one reason why regional policy is so seldom debated here. Indeed, we often think that it does not figure at all on the Government's agenda.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench. He deals with regional government as part of the shadow environment team. During the debate, I shall obviously be referring to matters that come within my hon. Friend's remit, although I shall also be speaking about some of the important issues relating to regional economic and industrial policy which fall within the remit of the Department of Trade and Industry. As a member of Labour's trade and industry team, those issues are of particular concern to me in that capacity. I have been in favour of regional government for as long as I have been in politics. I stress that point because the fashionable view of some London-based political commentators is that regional government has become popular among Labour party members in England only as a response to the position in Scotland. That is far from true. We are not here simply in response to what has been described as the "West Lothian question" in deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),

When we arrive to take up our seats in the House of Commons, we are obviously strongly influenced by the constituency that we represent and the part of the country from which we come. Indeed, all the experiences that we have had before coming to the House influence us. That is

Column 513

certainly true in my case. The experience of coming from the north-east of England is an important influence on my views on the issue with which we are dealing this morning.

When one grows up in the north-east, one is aware that the region is a long way from the English seat of power in London. Many people in the north-east often feel marginalised and that their views are not taken into account. Geordie humour sums that up in the phrase, "The English divvent want we and the Scots winna have we." Whether or not that is true, the fact that it is said shows that there is a feeling of isolation in the north-east. The region has many characteristics in common with Scotland, perhaps as many as it does with England. It certainly has characteristics of both, which are evident in such things as its folk music tradition.

The north-east of England and the lowlands of Scotland are also ethnically similar, if one can put it that way. Certainly the same surnames are evident on both sides of the border. However, I do not pursue the ethnic argument to too great an extent because in the United Kingdom our backgrounds are very mixed up. Indeed, the irony of someone with the surname Quin introducing a debate on the north-east should be borne in mind. I have Irish and Scots ancestry as well as many Geordie and northern England forebears. As many of us have mixed backgrounds I would not like to say that ethnic reasons are the main reasons for tabling this motion. I and many others of us believe that a regionalised system is sensible and efficient, both economically and politically. That is one of the main motivations behind my motion.

The history of devolution has been a chequered one in our country, perhaps since the second world war. Whether we were Members of Parliament in the 1970s or not, many of us will remember the many debates on devolution that took place in Parliament at that time. The position is different today and there are many more reasons to pursue devolution further. The debate has moved on and new elements have crept in which make devolution attractive to many people who perhaps did not feel so strongly about it or were even hostile to it in earlier days.

The first difference between now and the 1970s arises from the experience of the past 12 years, during which we have witnessed a growing and marked centralisation of power. Local government has had its powers and influence greatly curbed. The metropolitan counties, such as Tyne and Wear, in which I live, have been disbanded, basically because the Government did not like their political complexion and the fact that people in those areas consistently elected Labour authorities. More and more decisions seem to have been concentrated not merely in Westminster or Whitehall but, increasingly, and particularly during the period of office of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), in No. 10 Downing street. The degree of centralisation was particularly marked in England. The regions of England, unlike the nations of Scotland and Wales, do not have their own Cabinet Minister, separate structures or, indeed, such elements as a separate Question Time in the House. That has led to an unbalanced position. We have about 45 million people in England, whereas there are only 5 million in Scotland and slightly fewer than 3 million in Wales. That is an imbalance in population terms. It is not healthy for the 45 million

Column 514

people of England to be so dependent both economically and politically on decisions made at the centre. It makes England one of Europe's most centralised states.

During the past 12 years the Government have shown a lack of interest in regional economic policies. For example, regional aid and selective assistance have been dramatically cut. The cuts were considerable in the early years of the Conservative Government when the country was suffering a deep recession. It was a tragedy that the very regions that needed support and had previously enjoyed a generous level of regional assistance suffered those cuts. It was at the precise moment at which they needed the assistance that it was cut.

That regional neglect has fuelled a feeling in many regions that perhaps they should be empowered to assist themselves in the face of an unsympathetic central Government. I can quote some of the figures on the cuts in regional selective assistance in the period in question. Between 1978-79 and 1990-91, regional selective assistance declined in the north by 78.8 per cent., in Yorkshire and Humberside by 68.8 per cent., in the east midlands by 36 per cent., in the north-west by 80 per cent. and in England as a whole by 75 per cent. Those severe cuts were inappropriate and harmful, in view of the recession of the early 1980s, to the prospect of economic recovery in those areas.

Throughout the past 12 years the regional gap has widened. I admit that the present recession is somewhat more complicated and is biting fairly hard in the south-east of England. None the less, it is clear from the figures for average per capita gross domestic product that the northern regions, Scotland and Wales have a smaller share of the nation's per capita GDP today than in 1979. Several figures, including the Government's own, document that clearly.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : My hon. Friend rightly highlights the problems caused by what the Government have failed to do in the regions. Is it not also a fact that, because industries in the north and north-west and other such places have increasingly been taken over by industries based in the south, the north has always been last for investment and first for cuts? That factor, on top of the Government's failure actively to pursue policies to attract manufacturing industries to the regions, has made the position even worse.

Ms. Quin : I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's comment. He is right. That is one of the reasons why the Opposition are so keen to get measures going which would enable the regions to promote their own economic development and regeneration for the future.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : Will my hon. Friend also take into consideration the disappointing development on the RECHAR money that is available to regions, especially those where mining, steel and textiles and, indeed, shipbuilding and defence in the south, have suffered as a result of the Government's policies? We are being denied that money by the Government's policies. Will my hon. Friend address that point?

Ms. Quinn : I assure my hon. Friend that I was going to come to that issue, which is important. It is significant that the regions that would be eligible to benefit from RECHAR are supporting the European Commission's attitude and not the Government's. They know that the

Column 515

European Commission is blocking that money for sound reasons. Unless pressure is put on the Government, they will simply substitute that money for money that they were going to spend in the regions anyway, and the regions will not receive any direct benefit, although that was the whole purpose of the RECHAR regulations.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : I believe that the figures that the hon. Lady gave earlier were for regional development grant rather than for regional selective assistance, which has been in existence for only about three years, as she will recall. Under the last Labour Government was not a subsidy of more than £1 million a day given to British Steel and to a number of other companies through regional development grant? It was disguised as if it were some form of regional assistance, whereas it was bailing out uneconomic, old industries which ought to have been modernised. Is not the success story of the present Government's policy the fact that they have managed to turn British Steel into a profit-making industry? Other industries such as shipbuilding, which were previously heavily subsidised, have ceased to take subsidies, with the result that the figures for the northern region appear quite different. A large number of smaller companies there have been receiving regional selective assistance since the middle 1980s.

Ms. Quin : The figures that I quoted were given in a written answer to a question that I put down about the cutbacks in regional preferential assistance. Obviously I strongly believe that industry has to be modernised --none of us is against that--but during the Government's term of office the restructuring in many of our industries has been far too savage. It has cut down our industries in comparison with those of our competitors to too great a degree. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) mentioned steel. Our steel industry is only a fifth the size of even the steel industry in what was West Germany. It is very much smaller than the Japanese industry. While I welcome the modernisation and some of the measures taken within British Steel, I should like the United Kingdom to have a much larger share of the European steel industry. As I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton, South is aware, I regret the tremendous contraction in our merchant shipbuilding industry. If regional governments had been in place, greater efforts would have been made to modernise and to retain the valuable parts of the shipbuilding industry, for example the yards of North East Shipbuilders Limited in Sunderland. A southern-based Conservative Government were not able to understand the importance of shipbuilding to the industrial future of this country. It is sad that we have allowed our industry to decline. The Japanese are the largest shipbuilders in the world and Japan is hardly a less-advanced or a backward industrial country. We have neglected sectors such as shipbuilding. Regional governments would have evaluated the economic strengths and weaknesses of their region and would have stood up for those industries far more vigorously than the Government have.

Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North) : Perhaps it is also relevant to the debate and to the area that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) represents that during the 1980-81 recession ICI--a large employer and a flagship in the area--lost one third of its suppliers. That

Column 516

does not sound like sensible restructuring but slaughter. I am sure that it would not have happened if we had had a more sensible regional government at the time.

Ms. Quin : I am happy to concur with my hon. Friend's telling comments which certainly describe the situation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton, South.

During the Conservative Government's period of office there have been high levels of unemployment. Those levels have varied widely and dramatically from region to region. Even today there are fewer full-time jobs in the northern regions, Scotland and Wales than there were in 1979. Again, the Government's figures make that absolutely clear.

The current recession has affected all areas, including the south-east. I should not like to give the impression that I think that the south-east of England is uniformly prosperous and everywhere else badly off. I know that it is more complicated than that. Even in London there are great areas of poverty. There are wide differences between the well-off and the least well -off in all regions. The widening of the prosperity gap has been a strong feature of the Government's period in office and is amply documented in their statistics, such as those in "Regional Trends".

Despite that and despite the fact that the south has been hit by the present recession, regional divisions continue to characterise the United Kingdom economy. If we are interested in achieving balanced economic prosperity that should be a matter of concern to all of us.

Interestingly, during the Conservative Government's period in office regional economic disparities have been paralleled by regional disparities in voting patterns. General elections in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s tended to be characterised by fairly uniform swings across the country. If one party was doing well, it tended to do well throughout the country. Since the Government came to office their regionally divisive policies have explained the marked differential patterns of voting. In the 1987 election there was a larger swing to the Opposition in areas such as the north, Scotland and Wales, whereas in the south there was a slight swing to the Conservatives. We must take regional differential voting patterns seriously. They have a message for democracy and for the Government. The case for regional devolution is reinforced, because the views expressed by the majority of people in each region would not be overlooked. They would at least be heard at regional level, if not at national level.

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton) : It is certainly true that in Scotland and Wales, which are rather different from the English regions, what the hon. Lady told us was true, as it is true of her part of the world, the north-east. However, I do not think that there was a significant swing against the Conservative party in the north-west or Yorkshire and Humberside in 1987. The hon. Lady may have the detailed figures, I do not. I believe that we held on to our position rather well in Yorkshire, Humberside and the north-west.

Ms. Quin : I think that what the hon. Gentleman says is less true of Yorkshire. I do not have the detailed figures with me, although I have studied them. It is true that there is more support for the Government the further south one goes.

Column 517

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford) : On behalf of the north-west I must point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) is right. While the Conservative party held on to seats in the north-west, despite a swing against it, there were massive swings against the Conservative party in the industrial belt from Liverpool to Manchester, which is the most dispossessed part of the north-west. That simply emphasises my hon. Friend's argument.

Ms. Quin : It is also true that in areas which were already held by Labour there was a further swing to Labour, which shows the polarisation between regions, and within areas where people felt that the Government had failed to understand their economic problems and difficulties.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : The hon. Lady talks about there being a polarising effect as one comes south. If she looks carefully at the whole north-west region she will find that it is roughly divided, with nearly as many Conservative as Labour seats. In Lancashire there are 15 seats. Twelve are Conservative and three Labour. The same situation arises in Cheshire. The only strength that the Labour party has in the north-west is in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, and the only reason for the movement towards Labour in 1987 was the demise of the Liberal Democrats, who disappeared virtually without trace in our region.

Ms. Quin : In many towns and cities where the Conservatives were once strong they have become an endangered species. In Newcastle, for example, the Conservatives controlled the city at times in the 1960s and 1970s, but they have now been reduced to a humiliating third place. That is because the people of the north-east feel that the Government have failed to address their problems or understand their difficulties. An examination of the figures confirms the polarisation that I have been describing.

Mr. Pike : As a Lancashire Member, I assure my hon. Friend that her argument on polarisation--which is shown markedly by local council changes in Lancashire--will be revealed even more starkly at the next general election.

Ms. Quin : I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Nicholson rose--

Ms. Quin : I will give way once more and then I must make progress, because many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Nicholson : The point that the hon. Lady makes about the cities is valid, but I suggest that it is more of a social than a political problem. In the regional cities of England--it is not true of Edinburgh-- the middle class has left the city area, and that is a social problem. It is not true of London, where the Labour party has been in steady decline for a long time and has been driven out of areas such as Fulham and Putney, which used to be Labour or marginal seats. The hon. Lady cannot apply her argument to the capital.

Ms. Quin : The social problem which the hon. Gentleman describes has been greatly increased by the Government's divisive policies. I have referred to the Government's lack of interest in regional support and policies. That was reinforced in a

Column 518

letter to me from the Department of Trade and Industry, in which it was admitted that the assisted areas map of Britain had not changed since 1984, although the economic situation of areas had changed greatly over those years.

The regional structures that have been allowed to survive--in some cases new ones have been set up--in the last 12 years have tended to be quangos with little or no local involvement. For example, regional health boards have been filled with Government-approved appointees rather than people who would reflect the majority view or majority political view of the region. There is great resentment about that in many regions. Indeed, people feel that some areas are being treated rather like colonies. In my county of Tyne and Wear, 80 per cent. of the elected councillors are Labour, yet Labour is practically excluded from all the quangos that are governing a large part of the county's activities. That is not good for democracy.

I point out in my motion that in terms of regional development the United Kingdom is increasingly out of line with other European countries, where there has been a move towards decentralisation. In Britain there has been greater centralisation in recent years.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a general principle, the nearer decisions are made to the people over whose lives they have an effect the better those decisions are likely to be, and that the further away those decisions are made the worse they are likely to be? Does she further agree that our impending closer union with Europe makes it even more urgent for us to have regional government?

We in Sunderland have already suffered over the loss of our shipyards because a decision was taken in Brussels, not in London, that overrode not only local public feeling but all logic. We in particular understand the need for regional government. so that we may have some power over our own lives.

Ms. Quin : I strongly support my hon. Friend. He describes the principle of subsidiarity, an ugly word which nonetheless describes an important aspect of our lives. Decisions should not be taken at a higher level than is necessary, and I find it ironic that the Government should say that they worry about centralisation in Brussels when they are so good at centralising power here at home.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) : Will the hon. Lady explain how, if she agrees with herhon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that it is retrograde that decisions about, for example, ship building should be taken in Brussels, a regional government or assembly would make a ha'porth of difference?

Ms. Quin : Under the German structure it would have been harder for that shipyard decision to have been taken. I assure the Minister that I do not hold the Government guiltless in the closure of the shipyards. Instead of meekly accepting the agreement that had previously been signed in Brussels, the British Government should have done much more to challenge the decision, which was no longer appropriate to the circumstances.

Mr. Mullin : It is not a question of the Government simply having meekly accepted the decision. It emerged in the case of the closure of the shipyards that the Government did not even know that Brussels had taken

Column 519

the decision. The Secretary of State was among the last to learn of it. Had we had regional government, such decisions would have been more open--

Mr. Key indicated dissent.

Mr. Mullin : The Minister is wrong. I do not believe he knows the facts. There is no point his coming to the House posturing when the Secretary of State at the time--as I believe he would admit in private, if not in public--did not know that an undertaking had been given that the shipyards would never open again, regardless of whether an offer came forward. In the event, an offer did come forward and it would have been commercially viable. An offer made by a Greek shipping company was rejected, not because any loss of public funds would have been involved but because a deal had been made of which the Minister was not even aware.

Ms. Quin : My hon. Friend is right and in raising that important issue he dealt with another important point. The Council of Ministers in Brussels makes decisions in secret and it is difficult to know precisely what is decided at those meetings. I understand that under the German system there are observers representing the regions at those meetings. Had we had a similar system, it would have been more difficult for the NESL yards to be closed in the circumstances in which they were closed.

Mr. Radice : Is it not a fact, on the link between the European regions and Brussels, that a number of the German La"nder now have offices in Brussels from which they are able to find out what is going on and influence decisions in Brussels?

Ms. Quin : Yes, and it is important, and will become even more important, for regions to have a presence in Brussels to argue their corner and ensure that their valid interests are recognised before decisions are taken.

While the example of the German La"nder is important, it should be remembered that, ironically, Britain and the allies set up the regionalised system in Germany after the war. The Germans were initially not too keen on having the system, and it is illustrative to examine the results of opinion polls in Germany on the regionalised system there.

In 1949, only a few years after the system had been set up, about half the German population was unhappy with its regionalised structure. That figure has now plummeted to less than 10 per cent. It was significant that, when East Germany was reunited with West Germany recently, the regional structure was adopted in eastern Germany without difficulty. It was one of the smooth elements of the transition--it certainly seems to have caused few significant problems.

We should also consider the economic successes of some of the German regions, which are varied in size and in other aspects. Tremendous efforts have been made in Baden-Wurttemberg in technology transfer, for example, which has been influential on thinking within the Labour party about regionalised structures in the future. Nordrhein Westfalen spends about ten times the amount that the Department of Trade and Industry spends on research and development. The Saarland is a useful model for our traditional industrial regions because it was traditional industrial region, yet its regional government have developed their own strategy for getting to grips with

Column 520

problems of over-dependence on one or two specific industries and have successfully tackled problems that are familiar to many parts of Britain.

Decentralisation has also taken place in other parts of Europe. Spain is a newer recruit to the European Community and it has already achieved considerable regionalisation. It has economic difficulties and I do not seek to disguise that, but the political tensions to which a centralised Spain was prey, particularly in the Basque region and Catalonia, have been greatly eased by the fact that those regions can affirm their own identities and have their own relationships with the European Community, and can develop their own economic potential.

Even in formerly centralised France, where the joke used to be that all school kids were learning exactly the same thing at the same time in whatever part of France they lived, important decentralisation and regionalisation reforms have taken place. They have helped France's economic effort and created impressive "technopoles" which are centres of technological excellence based in different regions, working with industry in those regions to ensure that they are technically and technologically efficient and effective for the future.

Italy, too, has had its regional successes despite the intractable problems of the south, where special factors have been at work. In other regions of Italy, for example Emilia-Romagna, the regional government have worked with local authorities to promote the creation of small businesses in an area where there were few small businesses previously. That has been a particularly striking success. European countries outside the European Community also have impressive regional models. Last year I attended a conference in Austria, which was also attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), and I found that even in that smaller country there was none the less an extensive regional network which people of all parties felt was beneficial to their political and economic success. Japan also has a regionalised structure, which is important in the operation of its economy. That fact is sometimes overlooked by western observers.

Despite the many examples of successful regionalisation, for success to take place at a regional level, it is important for the efforts of regional governments to be backed up by a strong regional policy at national level. That is certainly the case in the German system, for example, which has a financial balancing mechanism that favours less-prosperous regions. That commitment at national level needs to be carried on even once the regionalisation process has taken place.

Many of us feel that one of the good aspects of the European Commission is that it seems to be more regionally minded than the Government. It is clearly trying to promote the participation of the regions in European decision making and I am afraid that the United Kingdom will simply be left behind in that process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said, many German and other regions have offices in Brussels and thus have a higher profile than many British regions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton mentioned the dispute between the European Commission and the British Government over the RECHAR scheme. Local authorities criticise the Government rather than the Commission because they believe that Europe is more a friend of the regions. They feel that pressure from Europe may eventually result in an unwilling Government being

Column 521

forced to give the regions the direct extra help to which they are entitled. However, it is a tragedy that the RECHAR scheme is already going ahead in France and Spain but not in the United Kingdom. I urge the Minister to take those points on board and perhaps use his influence with his ministerial colleagues. I understand that the Department of the Environment is in favour of accepting the Commission's rulings on the matter, but that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury are the obdurate departments in refusing to unblock the money. If so, I hope that the Minister will use his influence with those other departments to ensure that a sensible decision is taken and that the areas that need those funds can have them in the near future.

Despite--or perhaps because of--increasing centralisation in Britain in the past 12 or 13 years, important initiatives in the regions have sought to redress the imbalance. I pay tribute to the work of the Northern Development Company, which has been set up by industry and trade unions with the support of local authorities in the northern regions because they felt that a development body was important to the northern region as a whole. At first, the Government were reluctant to see that body set up and gave it very little or no help, but subsequently they have been persuaded to help the Northern Development Company by awarding it a grant.

The initiative took place within the region and is an important example of how regions want to help themselves in an unsatisfactory national situation. The company was recently named development agency of the year as a tribute to its efforts, despite the fact that it was greatly underfunded compared to the Welsh or Scottish development agencies.

I also pay tribute to the enterprise boards that have managed to survive in the new climate and to continue their work with a great deal of entrepreneurial skill. The Yorkshire, West Midlands and Greater London enterprise boards have all continued in different ways to encourage regional economic development in their areas. Business people, too, increasingly see the value of organising at a regional level. The chambers of commerce in the north-east have taken some important initiatives recently. Separate chambers of commerce on Tyneside and Teesside now seek to come together for the good of the region as a whole. The Government should pay greater attention to the fact that chambers of commerce now see the need to group in larger units to exercise more economic clout. The more I consider such developments, the more it appears that the Government are out on a limb and everyone else is coming round to a regional perspective.

Mr. Devlin : I also applaud the work of the Northern Development Company and think that it has a valuable role to play, but why is it necessary to go further and impose on the people of the northern region an extremely costly extra level of government which will presumably have powers to increase taxes and will also have a capital in Newcastle and a bureaucracy which, according to the Labour party's only document on the subject, would seem to be expected to run everything from sport to hospitals? Why is all that necessary and how would it be financed?

Ms. Quin : I do not know why the hon. Gentleman seems to be so worried about the costs involved. We are

Column 522

talking about the simplification of government--decentralising government--which would bring cost benefits. We are also proposing a regional tier of government, with one tier below that. We would not intend to add an extra tier, but want to make the system more effective in future.

I caution the hon. Gentleman about making wild statements on costs, because when the details are considered and the process implemented, it will not be seen as a costly, huge bureaucratic effort, but a more effective one than we have at present.

Dr. Ashok Kumar (Langbaurgh) : What about the poll tax?

Ms. Quin : My hon. Friend mentions the poll tax--I agree that we should not take lessons from the hon. Member for Stockton, South about wasting public money.

Most political forces in Britain--apart from the Conservative party--favour a regionalised system. I note that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is present. I know that the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on local government recently argued strongly in favour of regional government in England, as well as devolution for Scotland and Wales. The Government should consider why there is such a large weight of political opinion in favour of regionalisation. The Labour party's commitment to regionalisation goes back a long way, certainly in my region. Resolutions calling for regional devolution were passed at the 1945 regional conference, and there has been a strong feeling in support of regional government at all the regional conferences that I have attended.

I pay tribute to some of the initiatives on regional government taken in the House by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North presented a Bill on behalf of the northern group of Labour Members shortly after I came into the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) presented a Bill calling for a north-west regional assembly. I also pay tribute to the work done on regional policy by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). He does a great deal to co- ordinate the work of different policy sectors that would be influenced by the introduction of a tier of regional government. I wish him well with his further efforts in the months leading up to the general election. The inspiration for our commitment to regionalisation lies partly in our experience of overcentralisation, and its economic and political disadvantages, and partly in the fact that we have seen successful examples of regionalisation elsewhere, to which I have referred. The Labour party believes that much can be achieved in the regional sphere economically as well as politically. We are convinced of the need to set up regional development agencies, building on existing initiatives such as the Northern Development Company, but allowing the work of those agencies to be greatly expanded so that they have a proper investment arm, can properly assesss their region's strengths and weaknesses, and take appropriate action to remedy some of the imbalances.

We believe that the Department of Trade and Industry should be far more decentralised. We want matters such as export services to be organised on a regional level so that there is immediate input into the system, with the regional level acting as co-ordinator between the various sources of advice and information that can be given to both small and

Column 523

large firms on their exporting efforts. Even if only about 10 per cent. of the companies that at present do not export did so in future, there would be a huge difference in the balance of payments deficit, and this country would take a great step towards improved economic performance.

A recent report from the Confederation of British Industry, entitled "Competing with the World's Best" showed that we should have a regionally organised system of technology transfer, as outlined in various Labour party documents. Obviously, however anything that happens at regional level will not detract from the necessity of taking action at a sub-regional level when there are specific economic problems.

It is clear that in the northern region, districts such as Barrow--which is geographically distinct and has a particular dependence on specific industries--may well need sub-regional efforts to ensure that they are given the necessary assistance in future. Nothing that I say detracts from the necessity of having task forces, action teams and organisations that will also tackle the problems at a sub-regional level.

I believe strongly that we must involve local people in such processes, and not simply impose solutions from above as has been done in so many ways during the past 12 years. The regional economic measures that we propose must have a democratic underpinning. Therefore, I strongly support the Labour party's proposal to set up regional assemblies. I also welcome the party's proposals for a sensible transition towards regional assemblies-- involving the elected members of local authorities throughout a region in a regional forum so that they become used to working together before the regional assemblies are set up.

I realise that I have spoken for a long time--[ Hon. Members-- : "Carry on."] I shall now move towards a conclusion.

I believe that the Government have wasted a huge opportunity by not introducing the regional agenda before now. It is a great tragedy that the current local government review seems to have entirely ignored the regional perspective. The Government may well find when they look at the results of the review that many people want a regional organisation, not simply a change in local government boundaries of the sort that the Government seem to envisage at present. If the Government are not careful, they will simply repeat the disastrous local government reforms of 1974 that imposed many new authorities on people without proper consultation. The Labour party is committed to consultations on the establishment of regional structures and to ensuring that people will be working together by the time the regional structures are in place.

Mr. Jack Thompson (Wansbeck) : Does my hon. Friend recall that a considerable battle developed over the issue of the northern region, particularly in northern Cumbria, and the BBC? The activities of the people of northern Cumbria were so sustained that the BBC changed its mind and once again included the northern part of Cumbria in the northern region. The people of Cumbria identified with the northern region, not the north- west.

Ms. Quin : I fully accept what my hon. Friend said. His point is important ; the BBC cannot be in any doubt of the regional feelings that exist in the northern region as a result of the campaigns that we have fought. There was also a

Column 524

strong reaction when it looked as though we would lose our regional news programme based on Newcastle and simply receive a merged programme emanating from Leeds. It was not that we were anti-Leeds, but we wanted to have our own regional identity and receive the news affecting our district.

Perhaps if representatives of the BBC are listening to this debate they will realise that many of us do not like the fact that so many BBC decisions now seem to centre on the mega-northern region that does not correspond to regional and local identities. We believe that there is no point in having a regional structure unless it corresponds to people's regional identities.

I shall now deal with some likely objections by Conservative Members. One of them has already been voiced by the hon. Member for Stockton, South who said that this would be yet another tier of costly government. Conservative Members may also mention boundaries. In order to get the best system we must consult on boundaries so that people will feel happy in their regions. The present standard planning regions provide the best basis for a regionalised structure and would work well. However, I am prepared to admit that in certain cases adjustments may be needed, depending on the strength of local feeling. The structure already exists. The fact that Conservative Members have created or gone along with a structure of quangos at regional level shows that they see the need for regional structures but are not keen on their being democratically controlled. We need a flexible system. We might even like to start with a pilot project in one region, and the most suitable candidates may be the regions that are already well advanced on the regional road. I should prefer a regionalised structure overall, assuming that people will accept that and feel happy about their future.

Another objection is that people in pubs and clubs are not talking about regional government. To a certain extent that is true. People do not rush up to me in my constituency and say that they want a regional assembly with this, that or the other power. None the less, they talk about policies imposed from the centre and have the strong feeling that the Government take no notice of their region. We should listen to those real feelings.

An ICM opinion poll published in The Guardian on 17 October said that electors warmed to proposals for devolution and that far more people supported than rejected the plans of the Opposition parties to devolve powers to governments in Scotland, Wales and the English regions. That is important. It may not be the highest matter on people's political agenda, but it shows that there is not the hostility to regionalisation that some people would like to claim.

Mr. Devlin : I should like to know a little more about that poll. Was not the question whether people would support devolution in Scotland and Wales and were the English regions tagged on as an afterthought? Most people are in favour of devolution in Scotland and Wales. There is not a large ground swell of opinion, even in the northern region, for regional government. There may be a demand for Scottish independence.

Next Section

Home Page