Metropolitan County Councils (Hansard, 23 November 1983)

§ 2. Mr. Fatchett
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up a public inquiry into the financial implications of the abolition of the metropolitan county councils.

§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Fatchett
As the Secretary of State has refused to subject his proposals to objective and public scrutiny, and as his White Paper gave no cost implications of abolishing the metropolitan country councils, does he agree that the ratepayers in those areas have a right to be suspicious that their rate bills will increase as a result of his proposals? Does he also agree that for a Government to abolish a tier of local government, or to change local government in the way that he proposes, without conducting any impartial analysis of the costs involved, is unprecedented?

§ Mr. Jenkin
We are sure that savings can be made by eliminating a tier of government. I am beginning to recognise my wisdom in not seeking to pluck figures out of the air, because had I done so I might have underestimated the savings that could be achieved. When I was in the west midlands last week I heard that the Dudley council had expressed confidence that it could save 33 per cent. of staff currently engaged in the West Midlands county council on services which would be transferred to Dudley. I hope that the councils in the West Yorkshire area will do their best to emulate that example.

§ Mr. Maples
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the financial implications of the proposed local government reform is that the ratepayers of London will no longer have to pay for the political excesses of the GLC?

§ Mr. Jenkin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The GLC's expenditure is so high that, quite apart from targets 303 and holdback—to which it is not subjected—it has taken itself out of the rate support grant altogether under the block grant system.

§ Mr. Parry
Will the Secretary of State consider the social implications of abolition? Is he aware that all those on Merseyside county council, including Conservative members, are utterly opposed to its abolition? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the decision will be opposed tooth and nail by the Labour movement on Merseyside because further jobs will be lost there as a result of the county council's abolition?

§ Mr. Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether the result should be savings for the ratepayers or the loss of council employees' jobs. They cannot both be right.

§ Mr. Favell
Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members are being inundated with literature from the metropolitan county councils saying why they should be saved? The latest literature from the GLC announces that it is setting up a briefing point at County Hall. Should not that expense be borne by the political parties that are seeking to save the skin of those white elephants, rather than by the hard-pressed ratepayers?

§ Mr. Jenkin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To add insult to injury, those ratepayers are having to pay for propaganda—particularly in London—against a proposal for which they voted in unprecedented numbers.

§ Mr. Meadowcroft
Given the Secretary of State's comments about the west midlands, will he have the confidence to publish more comprehensive information about the financial savings that he believes can be made so that they can be considered by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

§ Mr. Jenkin
It would not make sense to try to put a figure on the savings until the district councils have considered in detail how they will finance and staff the services for which they will become responsible, either individually or jointly. They are now considering that, and I am encouraged by the information coming forward.

§ Dr. Cunningham
Does the Secretary of State agree that his proposals to abolish the metropolitan counties and the GLC run contrary to almost all local government practice among the western industrial nations that face the problems of conurbations? Does he realise that his proposals have hardly any supporters in the local government associations? The proposals will cause unnecessary dislocation of essential services. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition, the proposals will result in control over those services being removed from the democratic process? They will be overseen by rate-raising quangos—[Interruption]—which may result in half a dozen rate bills dropping on each doormat. Given the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the GLC, does he recall writing to the Herbert commission, expressing his support for the GLC and saying that there should be a progressive return to the concept of the GLC being a strategic authority?

§ Mr. Jenkin
In the course of his somewhat lengthy question the hon. Gentleman has been guilty of more inaccurate statements than I would have believed possible. He knows perfectly well that there will not be a large number of rate demands. Our policy on that is clear in the 304 White paper on rates. As a result of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the Herbert commission pointed out to me fairly sharply that when it had reported on local government in Greater London it had at no stage used the word "strategic".

§ Dr. Cunningham
But the right hon. Gentleman did.

§ Mr. Jenkin
Yes, but the answer is that I was proved wrong.