West Midlands County Council (Abolition) (Hansard, 23 March 1982)

§ Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the West Midlands Metropolitan County Council. My Bill is designed not as an attack on local government but as an attempt to make local government more local, to simplify its operation, to enhance the role of the district councillor, to make local government more understandable to voters and ratepayers and to help restore the respect and affection that West Midlanders once felt for their city and borough administrations.
Since 1970 an additional 500, 000 people have been recruited by local authorities, but before we criticise county and district councillors we must remember that local government has been subjected to an avalanche of legislation. In the period between the enactment of the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 and the Highways Act 1980, more than 130 statutes were processed. Each added to or amended the existing mass of legislation affecting local government, including such items as the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 and a statutory instrument entitled Grey Squirrels (Warfarin) Order.
The most significant statute of that period was the Local Government Act 1972, which set up a two-tier structure in large conurbations. After eight years the House is now in a position to judge the efficacy of that system. I single out the West Midlands metropolitan county for abolition, not because its performance is markedly different from that of other metropolitan counties, but because its baleful effect has been felt by my constituents in Coventry, which should never have been shackled to the West Midlands. The baleful effect has also been felt by my ex-colleagues on the Birmingham city council, who, like their counterparts in Wolverhampton, Walsall, Sandwell and Solihull, would have been quite capable of running one-tier, unitary authorities, had the opportunity continued.
Since 1974, that option has been removed. Proud cities such as Coventry and Birmingham relinquished their powers on strategic planning, public transport, major highways, refuse disposal, the fire, police and probation services and trading standards.
Today, duplication and confusion make life difficult for officers and county and district councillors alike. In highways maintenance, Coventry city council maintains 439 miles under an agency agreement, but the county council maintains 12 miles of strategic roads. There is therefore duplication of depots and highway gangs, which travel 20 miles to Coventry to carry out road works. Through one particular act of administrative lunacy, adjacent street lights are now maintained by city and county work teams.
With regard to environmental health and trading standards, the county is responsible for checking the quantity of lead in ceramic glass food containers, while the district is responsible for any breakdown of the element should it result in lead poisoning. The county has responsibility for an emergency plan to deal with an outbreak of rabies, while the district is involved in dog control and dog catching.
803 The county planners produce a structure plan as weighty as the E to K London telephone directory. In trying to ensure that the policies therein are achieved, they will duplicate the district council's development work in housing land availability, enhancement schemes, tourism and conservation.
In January 1979 the Labour Government published a White Paper on organic change. It said that the Government believes that it is essential to the healthy working of democracy for local government to be accessible to the people it serves. Communities with an identity of their own and a capacity for organising their own services should so far as is possible, and where the nature of the service makes it appropriate, be allowed to manage their own affairs and be accountable to their own electorate for them. Large urban areas in particular generate problems of their own which need to be tackled comprehensively by district councils equipped with a wide range of powers. On 21 June 1979 my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services said in a written answer: The Government are … committed to improving the efficiency of local government and to this end are urgently reviewing ways in which any unnecessary and wasteful duplication arising from overlapping functions under that Act"— the 1972 Act— can be eliminated."—[Official Report, 21 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 686–87.] In the context of the West Midlands, the case for an urgent review is now overwhelming. Sorely pressed ratepayers have had to contend with a metropolitan county council which has increased spending from £86 million in 1974–75 to £305 million in 1981–82 and which now employs 4, 900 full-time and 1, 000 part-time staff. Following the introduction of the revised block grant arrangement, the county now costs the average Coventry ratepayer £80.60 per annum, and the West Midlands, in spending 27.9 per cent. above its volume targets, is second only to the GLC at 29.9 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) has for many years been conducting his own review and campaign for the reallocation of functions. My Bill does not go as far as he would like, but as a first step it provides for a reallocation of functions and the abolition of the metropolitan county tier.
It is not the intention of my Bill to cause a major upheaval by returning the differing and various powers of the county to the eight former county boroughs, the three municipal boroughs, one urban district and parts of two rural districts. It is, however, the intention to retain the seven large viable disricts created in 1974 and, with one or two exceptions, to transfer to them the same powers as were held by the old county boroughs.
Coventry is quite capable of running its own police and fire services and would be willing to integrate them with 804 the surrounding Warwickshire forces if required. I should not presume to advise my West Midlands colleagues to locate this function within their districts, but even if they decided to retain a West Midlands police force excluding Coventry, it could report to a watch committee appointed from councillors of the constituent district authorities.
Similarly, a passenger transport authority could control a West Midlands passenger executive through a chairman appointed by a committee of geographically representative district councillors. All other county functions should be returned to the district councillors, whose relief and rejuvenation would provide a shot in the arm for local government.
The West Midlands metropolitan county council is as useful to local government as the appendix is to the digestive system. Its presence is unnecessary and it becomes noticeable only when it malfunctions. Its enlargement causes financial pain and it is in the nature of that appendage that it can choose only to be an inert encumbrance or, through its growth, a danger to civic responsibility.
The residents of the West Midlands have had enough. The ratepayers, the councillors and many officers want their local government back where it belongs. Regardless of their political stance, they are willing to resume their responsibilities. My Bill is designed to give them that chance.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House by telling us whether you have received any notification of an hon. Member wishing to oppose the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for instance, has been given the opportunity to oppose this excellent Bill as it concerns his own county council.

§ Mr. Speaker
I had better confine myself to saying that I have not received any such notice.