HC Deb 04 April 1984 vol 57 cc945-7
3. Mr. Fatchett

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed cancellation of the 1985 elections in the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

The proposed suspension was the subject of representations by all the six metropolitan counties, by a third of the metropolitan districts and by others. I considered those representations carefully before introducing the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill last Friday.

Mr. Fatchett

Is the Secretary of State aware that the public are concerned that legislation is being introduced to abolish elections before the House has had an opportunity to vote on the principle of the abolition of metropolitan counties? Is not the real reason for the cancellation of elections simply the fact that the Government are frightened to give 18 million people the opportunity to vote on the issue?

Mr. Jenkin

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman because, as I made clear when the Bill was introduced and I held a press conference, it is my intention—and I shall announce this firmly on Second Reading—that an order for the suspension of elections will not be introduced until after the House has given a Second Reading to the main abolition Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Therefore, the proprieties will be preserved.

Mr. Hal Miller

With regard to the proposed Bill, will my right hon. Friend accept that there is a degree of scepticism about whether any reorganisation of local government can produce savings either in expenditure or staff and that he could help dispel such scepticism and gain support for his Bill if he were able to say that attention was being given to the whole question of local authority financing, without which it appears to some people that reorganisation is unlikely to produce the desired results?

Mr. Jenkin

My hon. Friend will recognise, because he follows these things closely, that where affected authorities have been able to make worthwhile estimates of the cost to them of running the services that will devolve upon them, they have indicated the prospect of substantial savings. Part of the difficulty is that a number of authorities have forbidden their officers to take part in any discussions either with officials of my Department or with the lower-tier authorities. Therefore, until that road block is removed I am not in a position to make detailed estimates covering the whole of the seven areas affected.

Mr. Loyden

Is the Secretary of State not aware that since he declared war on local authorities he has united such divided sections of the community as the Church leaders in Liverpool and what he has referred to as the militants on Liverpool city council? Is it not time he realised that the growing opposition to the policies he is pursuing must be recognised and that he should now consider the representations that have been made to him by the mass of the community in Liverpool about Merseyside county council?

Mr. Jenkin

There is a later question on Liverpool, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the House passed the Rates Bill by a larger majority on Third Reading than on Second Reading, which does not suggest declining support. Secondly—I have to remind the House of this when I have the opportunity — we are doing no more than implementing the recommendations of a large number of metropolitan districts, including Liverpool city council, which made the proposition that power should devolve upon them.

Mr. Bottomley

Will my right hon. Friend accept that if the measure for the suspension of the 1985 elections is passed it will imply that the House is satisfied with the Government's general proposals for metropolitan counties? Can he state whether he has yet heard from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) why he failed at any stage during the general election to defend the existence of the GLC or metropolitan authorities?

Mr Jenkin

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) must be answerable for himself, but I think his views are well known. The answer to my hon. Friend's first point is that we do not intend to introduce the order suspending the 1985 elections until after the House has given its approval in principle, which it will do by giving a Second Reading to the main abolition Bill at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Boyes

This question is about representation. How can I be assured that you will tell the truth about the——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I do tell the truth.

Mr. Boyes

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. How can I be assured that the Secretary of State will tell the truth, when one of his underlings deliberately lied to me on 29——

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not in order either.

Mr. Boyes

I am sorry if I am using the wrong word, but there are so many different words to use. When the Under-Secretary said——

Mr. Speaker

Order. This the third time. The hon. Gentleman must not quote. He must ask his question.

Mr. Boyes

When I asked a question about how many metropolitan council opposition leaders were against abolition, I was deliberately misled, and the House was deliberately misled, by Mr. Waldegrave——

Mr. Speaker

Order. "The Minister" would be more helpful.

Mr. Boyes

The Minister deliberately misled the House by implying——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Nobody in the House deliberately misleads. The hon. Gentleman must know that.

Mr. Boyes

The Minister misled the House when he implied that the opposition leader on the metropolitan county council of Tyne and Wear was in favour of the abolition of Tyne and Wear council. I have proved to him since, by sending him a minute of the meeting, that this is not true.

Mr. Jenkin

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might decently have offered an apology for the accusations that he tried to make against my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hayes

Is it not remarkable that Opposition Members should be complaining about a lack of consultation, when it was made clear by the British people at the general election that they wanted the abolition of the metropolitan counties because they were sick to death of the £770 million overspend, leading to the loss of jobs?

Mr. Jenkin

My hon. Friend has obviously been reading the Labour party's manifesto at the last election, in which it proposed single-tier local government, including the abolition of the metropolitan district councils and, presumably, the GLC.

Dr. Cunningham

Is it not complete deception for the Secretary of State to say that there are precedents for what he now proposes? When did a Government ever use a device to bypass the ballot box and change political control of a major city in this country?

Mr. Jenkin

The precedents are perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman refers to schedule 3(6) to the London Government Act 1963 and to schedule 3(12) to the Local Government Act 1972, he will find precedents that are very close indeed to what we are putting before the House. The fact that on this occasion the whole authority will be up for election is a difference of degree, not a difference of principle.