Beta This is a new service and it is still being tested. Tell us about a problem.

Parliament's record since 1997: debates, questions, statements, votes, bills, committees and members' interests

Where MPs Stand

Sourced briefings on the record of Parliament

Regional Development Agencies Bill

House of Commons, 16 November 1998.

CONSTITUTION

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment. The Bill, as we sent it to the other place, provided a general list of the types of people whom the Secretary of State must consult before making an appointment. The list included representatives of local authorities, employers, employees and others. Each heading in the list could be said to encompass rural interests no less than non-rural interests. I can confirm that that is how we have proceeded. None the less, we are a listening Government, and we have been happy to listen to those who have said that their concern about identifying board members with rural expertise will persist unless the Government put it beyond any doubt that rural interests will be consulted about appointments now and—what seemed to cause most concern—in the future. We were happy to table the amendment in the other place to do just that. I commend the amendment to the House.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South)

This is a minimalist, grudging amendment that has been brought about by effective Conservative opposition. The Minister says that he wants to place it beyond any doubt that the Government are concerned about rural interests. That has been in doubt for a long time, particularly during the passage of the Bill, and it remains in doubt to this day. The amendment goes some way towards meeting the Conservative party's point about rural representation. In the other place, a similar amendment was rejected, on the odd ground that it was not appropriate for London. That amendment proposed that a representative who was an expert or had some involvement in rural interests should sit on the development agency. We accept that this amendment ensures that rural interests will be consulted. Our concern is that pressures grow, and it will be all too easy for urban interests to dominate debates inside the development agency. The amendment does not fully alleviate that concern, but it provides some consultation of rural interests, and as such we are happy to support it.

Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay)

The Liberal Democrats are grateful that this matter has been considered and an acceptable form of words has been found. Many of the divisions in our society between urban and rural areas are based on misconceptions. It was important to address this issue, and it has come back before us today. Many people in rural areas will feel more satisfied that their voice will be heard under these new structures.

Howard Flight (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I, too, am relieved that some element of rural representation has been accepted in the amendment from the other place. As the representative of a rural area in West Sussex, I have two concerns outstanding. The RDAs will, in effect, clearly take the lead on transport policy, and, in practice, may take the lead on structural planning. Those are two key rural issues, and I express the great concern of my constituents from all parties that the powers of county councils, particularly rural county councils, will be emasculated.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I can clarify the position for the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). Planning and transport powers will not be assigned to regional development agencies.

POWER TO ALTER REGIONS

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment. Clause 25 deals with the Secretary of State's powers to alter the regions of RDAs by order. In the Bill sent to the other place, the order was to be subject to the negative resolution procedure in both Houses, following consultation with interested parties and, where appropriate, a public inquiry. Amendment No. 2 provides for orders made under clause 25 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure, as provided for in the Bill as drafted. That reflects a recommendation from the House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which the Government were content to accept.

POWERS IN RELATION TO THE COMMISSION

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

These amendments are purely technical. Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 allow the Secretary of State to specify, by order, that English Partnerships and the Rural Development Commission may provide services to the RDAs. We have in mind the provision of IT services in particular, so as to ensure that the expertise and the IT systems of EP and the RDC are available to the RDAs in the early days, to enable them to become established quickly and seamlessly. That is without prejudice to the wishes of the RDAs to consider their long-term strategies. Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 relate to the making of schemes to transfer staff and assets from EP or the RDC to other public bodies, other than RDAs. Throughout the Bill, transfers of staff and assets from EP, the RDC or Government offices to RDAs are effected by transfer schemes to be approved by the Secretary of State. The amendments make it clear that transfer schemes relating to transfers from EP and RDC to other public bodies can be prepared in a similar way, separate from the orders made under clauses 35 or 37. I commend the amendments to the House.

New clause

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Richard Caborn (Labour, Sheffield Central)

This is a technical amendment, to ensure that the transfer of assets in schemes made under the Bill is neutral for the purposes of corporation tax. The amendment follows a similar provision contained in the Electricity Act 1989. It provides that the body receiving the assets stands in the shoes of the body from which they have been transferred, so that, for tax purposes, it is as if the assets had not changed hands. That is particularly important in the case of assets transferred to the RDAs from English Partnerships. Part of English Partnerships' work is to reclaim land for redevelopment. When the land is sold, English Partnerships is liable to pay tax on the proceeds, but can offset against that the cost of reclamation and other work. The amendment will allow an RDA to offset against tax expenditure incurred by English Partnerships before the land was transferred to the RDA. Without it, the RDA would be liable to pay tax on the whole of the increased value of the land, regardless of the fact that much of that would be due to the money that English Partnerships had invested in reclaiming it. The Corporation Tax Act 1988 provides for similar arrangements in the case of companies in common ownership; but, as "common ownership" is defined there in terms of share capital, we need specific provision in the case of non-departmental public bodies in the common ownership of the Secretary of State. I commend the amendment to the House.