GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) [MONEY] (Hansard, 21 June 1979)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)
The House gave the Bill—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members seem to be unaware that the Minister is addressing the House.

§ Mr. Finsberg
The House gave this Private Bill its Second Reading on 12 June. Clause 8 of the Bill seeks power to establish a staff commission. Its role would be to look after the interests of the GLC staff involved when the property with which they deal is transferred from the GLC to the London boroughs and to some district councils outside London. There is no doubt that these staff should be transferred, and it is generally agreed that a statutory staff commission appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is essential if the transfers are to go smoothly.
There are many precedents for staff commissions of this sort. For example, they were appointed to deal with the transfers resulting from the local government reorganisations of 1965 and 1974, as well as those associated with the current transfer of housing from new town development corporations to new town district councils. In these previous cases, the Government have accepted that they should foot the bill for the establishment and operation of the staff commissions. We see no reason to depart from this practice now.
The power enabling the Government to meet this cost is sought in the money resolution which we are now debating. I ask the House to approve this resolu- 1638 tion. With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I shall seek to catch your eye again at the end of this brief debate if there are any points to answer.

§ Mr. Ronald W. Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
When we debated this Bill, I said that I was dissatisfied with the proposals and put a number of questions. Although the Minister did his best to satisfy me, I was not satisfied. I felt that the only way that I could enlarge on the matter was by blocking the money resolution so as to have this short debate in an attempt to get more information. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for offering to clarify some points.
In the previous debate, I drew attention to the fact that the New Towns Commission was still in being and was coming to the end of its work. Since it had had a wide experience of the transfer of houses, land and other facilities in the new towns, it seemed sensible that it should be asked to carry on and use its invaluable experience. I should like to know why the Commission is not being called on to continue.
I am totally opposed to these transfers anyway. The tenants of the GLC and of the boroughs, certainly in Hackney, will not be able to be rehoused in any other part of London. They will have no possibility of a transfer. We are already experiencing severe problems in getting families transferred. Houses are being kept empty and their state of repair is deplorable. We can already see examples of what will happen when the Bill is put into effect.
The House must be satisfied that this public expenditure is right and proper. When the Government are cutting public expenditure, nothing is safe. In my own area, for example, it is proposed to close two hospitals to save just £2 million, notwithstanding all the concern and the problems facing my constituents.
The Conservative chairman of the housing committee of the GLC is apparently authorised to make unlimited offers to transferee authorities to take these properties over. We are told that it runs into tens of millions of pounds. How ironic that we close two hospitals in my constituency to save £2 million while at the same time the Government are able 1639 to authorise the expenditure of tens of millions of pounds on this exercise of transferring homes which will not mean one extra home for any family. The Government are prepared to trade the health and welfare and the lives of my constituents for their measly £2 million, yet they are able and willing to authorise this high expenditure on transfers. In Hackney the transfer will be a continuing burden on the ratepayers.
There are in Hackney 26,000 GLC properties. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Ravensboume (Mr. Hunt) when we debated the general powers Bill to ask how many GLC estates he had. He said that he had 760 units of accommodation. We have 26,000, the majority of them flats. The people living in them will never be able to move out of them. They will have no opportunity because the 760 units in Bromley will continue to be occupied by Bromley people. We know that this is a fact. It therefore seems quite improper for me to assist this transfer in any way.
We are told by the Minister that the three commissioners to be appointed, Messrs. Vine, Bodell and Dryden, will be paid. We see on today's Order Paper that the House is merely to "authorise the payment". How much payment? Why is it that the House is not told? I cannot believe that it is possible to evaluate how much can be saved by closing two hospitals in my constituency yet impossible to evaluate how much money we are to pay to Messrs. Vine, Bodell and Dryden. We are entitled to know how much we are to pay them in expenses.
How can it be argued that this House is carrying out its function of scrutinising expenditure if we simply accept the type of blank cheque that we see on the Order Paper? How hollow ring the words of the Chancellor who spoke of the need for financial control. Here we are being asked to authorise expenditure, yet the precise amount appears nowhere. It did not appear in the general powers Bill and it does not appear tonight in the money resolution. It is deplorable that we are being asked to approve this document when the Government clearly have no idea how much this exercise will cost.
1640 I am opposed to this resolution because I believe it is totally unnecessary. It fails to say how much money is involved and is, in effect, an open-ended cheque. For these reasons, I object to it most strongly.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg
With the leave of the House, I will reply. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has asked a few questions. I believe that two were relevant and I shall gladly give him as much information about them as I can. I told the hon. Gentleman when we debated the general powers Bill that the bulk of his argument was against the principle of transfer and that that principle was not in the Bill and is not in the money resolution. He has done his calculations concerning Hackney I am glad to hear that he admits that even the London borough of Hackney will ultimately take the housing being offered by the GLC, which is a great advance.

§ Mr. Ronald W. Brown
I did not admit that.

§ Mr. Finsberg
The hon. Gentleman may not have admitted that, but the fact is that the London Labour Party has had to break ranks on this.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the use of the staff commission for the new towns. He said that it was running down, he wondered whether the membership could be used, and he then named at least two people who are connected with the new towns. I do not deny that we are hoping to make use of the expertise of those gentlemen. I believe that this would be very welcome, and I doubt that NALGO, for example, would be at all unhappy at their use. Indeed, I believe that it is purely in the interests of the staff that this is being done.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel constrained to put the staff at risk, which is what would happen if the money resolution were not passed. There are other ways of dealing with the matter, without a money resolution, but I am sure that he would not want to jeopardise the position of the staff.
The sale or transfer of the houses is not in any way affected by the money resolution.

§ Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)
Will the Minister kindly clarify one of the 1641 provisions in the Bill—clause 7 on page 5—relating to the parking of vehicles? It is a problem of considerable concern in my constituency that vehicles parked on GLC estates do not come under the normal control of the Metropolitan Police in relation to parking offences. Could he explain what that provision is about?

§ Mr. Finsberg
Unfortunately, if I tried to do so I should be ruled out of order by the Chair, since that is not covered by any part of the money resolution. The opportunity to raise that matter was available when we had our three-hour debate on the general powers Bill. However, I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman tables a question the appropriate Minister will be delighted to give him an answer, or the GLC would be glad to give him an answer. If he cares to write to me, I shall pass the matter on to the right quarter with the greatest pleasure.
I do not propose to discuss the allegations about hospital closures in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch because I do not know the facts. All I know is that it was his late unlamented Government who tried to murder the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital and it is my Government who are trying to save it. So in regard to hospitals I am satisfied with the record.
There is one matter on which I can. I think, give the hon. Gentleman a helpful answer. With reference to cost he said that it was wrong—I think he said "scandalous"—that he did not know the amount of money involved. He has been in the House longer than I have. If he casts his eye over money resolutions he will find that none of them gives a figure. However, I am delighted to give him a figure on this occasion. The estimated cost to fall upon the Exchequer as a result of the operation of the staff commission is approximately £80,000 per year. I think that the people of London would regard that as very good value.
I think that those are the only relevant matters on which I can help the House. With those few words, I commend the money resolution for approval.