HC Deb 05 July 1984 vol 63 cc468-76 3.51 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)

rose—

Hon. Members

Resign.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Jenkin

With permission, I should like to make a statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, which is also being made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President in another place.

The Government have decided to table an amendment to the Bill on Report in another place to the effect that the present members of the Greater London council and the metroplitan county councils will continue in office until 1986 but without elections next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] At the same time, further provisions will be introduced to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)

rose—

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

Go easy on him, Jack.

Dr. Cunningham

Is not this apology of a statement indicative of the panic and incompetence now prevalent in the right hon. Gentleman's office? Is he aware that at 1.45 pm his office told my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that the right hon. Gentleman would not be making a statement and that at 2.50 pm we were told that he would be?

Does not his statement mean that elections will have to be cancelled in advance of the House of Commons and the other place taking a final view about abolition? Was not that the central objection to the Bill as expressed in the amendment carried so convincingly in the House of Lords?

Is not an extension of terms of office almost certain to be needed for more than one year, given the complexity of the work done by the metropolitan county councils and the GLC, and will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that there is no precedent—in spite of his assertions—for extending terms of office before the main issue of the future of councils in reorganisation has been decided? That is a fact.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who told the House: It would have been bad to extend the period of election beyond the term of election of councillors".—[Official Report, 12 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 524.]

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite wrong. I said that the Government would consider a number of options in response to the amendment passed in another place. We have done that and I have now made a statement to the House giving the outline of our conclusions. I find the criticisms of the proposal which I have put before the House and which will be moved in another pace a little strange. After all, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), on Second Reading of the paving Bill, said: I can sympathise with the Secretary of State's claim that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. I fully realise that, but the natural thing to do in those circumstances is to allow local authorities to continue in existence for another year." — [Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 469.] Since that is precisely what we are doing, I cannot understand the complaint.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire, South-East)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are much relieved that the quangos that were to be brought into existence to take over from the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will not now come into existence? May I ask my right hon. Friend two questions? Does he appreciate that the manner in which the reform is carried through is extremely important? How will he make the Government's decisions known to the House? Will he ensure that some document—White Paper, report—is debated by the House before the Second Reading of the main Bill? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the debate that has raged sharply over the controversy in the last six to nine month, has given rise to a feeling in some metropolitan counties and particularly in London that some body is needed to provide a strategic overview of the affairs of our capital city?

Mr. Jenkin

I am hoping that before the House rises I may be able to publish a brief parliamentary document setting out in summary the Government's decisions on the destination of the functions at present carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Any question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

I am aware of the view that there needs to be some upper-tier authority to take an overview. That is not Her Majesty's Government's view. We believe that the services currently carried out by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils can be devolved upon the true organs of local government—the local borough and district councils.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Secretary of State now admit that the proposals, which were his idea and which he persuaded the Cabinet to adopt, were unconstitutional and wrong? Will he assure the House, since they were his idea, that it will not be he who will take us through the next proposals? Most importantly, for whatever period the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the councils will run, will members of his party propose to fight any by-elections that might arise, or do they propose to boycott them as further evidence that they do not really believe in democracy after all?

Mr. Jenkin

There is no question of who takes the Bill through in another place. In this place, the other Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

The legislation will, of course, allow by-elections to continue. Arrangements will no doubt be made in the main Bill. The question of fighting by-elections is a matter for local Conservative associations.

Sir Ian Gilmour (Chesham and Amersham)

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his timely and necessary concession? Will he bear in mind — it is important that he does so because the same thing may happen in the next Session—that it would be far better to pay attention to the overwhelming argument in this House than to wait to be pressurised by an adverse vote in another place?

Mr. Jenkin

Although I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind words, I am entitled to point out that the paving Bill secured a Third Reading in this House by a majority of 128. The Government take full heed of points that are made, and the response that I have announced to the proceedings in another place is a demonstration of that.

Mr. Harry Cowans (Tyne Bridge)

When the Secretary of State made his statement, he said that he was pleased to do so. He could have fooled me, and I think that he could have fooled the whole House. I have never seen a man who looked less pleased.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, not only to tie House but—more importantly—to those outside, why his Government are afraid of the ballot box? They advocate ballots very loudly in other areas, but when it is within their power to allow the people to speak they deny them the right to do so. Why?

Mr. Jenkin

It is fully in accordance with precedent that, during a reorganisation of the structure of local government, elections are suspended. That is what we are doing in this case. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we won the election in 1983 and that we won the Euro-election last month.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford)

The move that my right hon. Friend has announced today is thoroughly sensible, and many of us are strongly in favour of devolving more functions to the London boroughs and getting rid of the GLC. However, my right hon. Friend would find that his policies commanded much more support if he recognised the need for a London-wide government to be included in the replacement arrangements to deal with London-wide matters which would otherwise be lost in Whitehall and in various quangos.

Mr. Jenkin

The Government are very familiar with my right hon. Friend's argument. We have considered that point very carefully. Like the leaders of the London boroughs, whom we have consulted, we believe that the services are best devolved to the London boroughs themselves. Such issues will be debated at length when the main abolition Bill is presented to the House.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

We all now realise that the Secretary of State has a glorious future behind him. Is he aware that his statement will solve nothing at all? Dismantling the Greater London council would take considerably longer than a year even if there was goodwill in county hall towards the Secretary of State—and there is very little goodwill at the moment. What advice will the Secretary of State give his successor? In about a year, someone will have to decide whether to extend the present GLC for a further year. Shall I be a GLC member for life, until the right hon. Gentleman gets his act together?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman has played a full part in our proceedings on the Bill. It is within his power to influence his colleagues to make sure that, if the Bill is approved by the House, the transition is achieved smoothly and successfully. On the other hand, he could behave in a difficult and obstructive manner. The choice lies with him. The Government intend to complete the abolition and the handover by April 1986.

Mr. John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely supported and welcomed by the majority of London Members. He has reaffirmed the abolition of an unwanted tier of local government and the restoration of the services to local democracy. Further, he is determined to ensure that the wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of ratepayers' money will be curtailed.

Mr. Jenkin

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For the details of the arrangements, my hon. Friend will have to wait for the tabling of amendments in another place.

Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich)

In view of the record of bumbling and bodging surrounding the legislation—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

The hon. Gentleman knows what he is talking about. He is an expert in bumbling and bodging.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Cartwright

Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that he will succeed in his stated aim of winding up the GLC by April 1986? There is a real risk that the effect of what he has said this afternoon will be to inflict the Livingstone regime on Londoners for two years after the end of the term for which it was elected.

Mr. Jenkin

The period would be one year. However, I. reject the hon. Gentleman's description. Legislation was passed in this House, an amendment was passed in another place, and the Government have responded to that amendment. I cannot conceive why that should be regarded as bumbling and bodging.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for explaining to the House the Government's proposed course of action, which seems to make good sense. Is he aware, however, that support for the abolition Bill next Session will still depend upon the Government's ability to demonstrate clearly that what follows abolition will be more efficient and cost-effective and will provide a better deal for the ratepayers?

Mr. Jenkin

That is a burden of proof which I shall be happy to discharge.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

The Secretary of State's party did not win the European elections in London. In London, those elections were won by the Labour party. That shows clearly that the people of London are angry not just about the abolition of the GLC, but about the removal of their right to vote for the GLC in May 1985. Why is the Secretary of State still intent on taking away that democratic right?

Mr. Jenkin

I have made it clear that it would not only be in accordance with precedent, but would make very good sense, to avoid having an election when the Bill is before the House or in another place. That is why the amendments to be tabled in another place will so provide.

If the results of the Euro-election had been repeated in a parliamentary election, the result would have been a Conservative majority.

Mr. Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all true Tories will welcome this return to constitutionalism?

Mr. Jenkin

I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

I speak as a Merseyside county councillor whose stay in office has been lengthened. I would prefer to trust the electors of Merseyside rather than to have my term of office extended in that way, especially as I know what their view would be. How can the Secretary of State guarantee that we shall not have a similar squalid performance over the abolition Bill, and that in 12 months' time the right hon. Gentleman's successor will not tell me that my term of office has been extended for another three or four years? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he refers to measures to combat the excessive use of powers by councils such as mine? Is he referring to our measures to create 7,000 jobs in an area which has been driven into the ground by his Government's economic measures?

Mr. Jenkin

I think that the hon. Gentleman is making altogether too much of this. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Jenkin

The legislation has passed this House. It has been amended in another place. The Government have announced their proposals, in response to the changes made in the Lords.

The measures to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will cover the use of section 137 of the Local Government Act and measures to prevent asset-stripping and long-term contracts.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)

The one criticism that could be made of my right hon. Friend and his Ministers is that, because they are so gentlemanly, they have failed to punch home the bigotries and lunacies of the present GLC and the futility of the GLC under either party. Let us not forget the outrageous expenditure by the GLC of £6 million to mislead the public, at the expense of the ratepayers. What will be done to put an end to this scandal in the new proposals?

Mr. Jenkin

The Government are very concerned about the use of ratepayers' money for political propaganda. I am studying urgently what steps might be taken to deal with that. However, I can give my hon. Friend no commitment that it will prove possible to legislate on the matter.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already told the House that there is heavy pressure on our subsequent debate, which is an Opposition day. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.20 pm, which gives us a full half-hour on this matter.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Does the Secretary of State recall that a few moments ago he did not reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) about a White Paper? Will he now tell the House that he will produce a White Paper before the legislation, whether it be before the House rises for the summer recess or not? Does he realise that any lack of such an undertaking will be interpreted as a lack of confidence on the part of the Government in their mistaken policies?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard. I answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East and said that I was hoping to publish—

Mr. Spearing

Hoping to.

Mr. Jenkin

—publish a parliamentary paper before the House rises. It would certainly be well before any question of a Second Reading coming before the House.

Mr. John Powley (Norwich, South)

Will my right hon. Friend note that it ill becomes the Opposition to gloat about the decision of the other place when it is their declared aim to abolish the other place? They should not take advantage of it just because it suits them when they wish to abolish it.

Mr. Jenkin

As we have seen in an article in the Daily Express today, those same people who cheer for the democratic decision of the House of Lords seem determined to defeat the intentions of this House on this and other legislation. That is sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that his own term of office has been extended?

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by squandering an enormous amount of money, Mr. Livingstone has perhaps temporarily persuaded some people that his case has a little credibility? Will my right hon. Friend henceforth ensure that the Government's policy is spelt out so that the electorate can agree with what the Social Democratic party, the Labour party and the Conservatives said at the last election? The alliance suggested that the GLC and the metropolitan county councils be abolished and the Labour party was committed to simplifying the division of responsibilities between the two tier authorities?

Mr. Jenkin

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the full details of the proposals are made known, the Government intend to ensure that they are understood and accepted by the electorate.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

Will the Secretary of State give us a word of explanation as to why the Government have changed their mind? Is it because of the adverse vote in another place or, as is manifest from the congratulations given by Conservative Back Benchers, is it because he could not overturn that vote in this House? Is he still proud of his original judgment?

Mr. Jenkin

If I may say so, the Opposition must make up their mind. Either the Government are rigid and authoritarian or we are flexible and listen to the arguments. We have listened and responded to the will of another place. That is why I have made my statement today.

Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham)

Will my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who were unable to support the Government on the paving Bill take no great pleasure in his predicament today, although our stance will not necessarily be the same on the mainframe legislation? Might I remind him that, when the House debated the issue in the debate on the Queen's Speech, in my maiden speech I urged the Government to tackle section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, which has partially enabled the propaganda campaign to go on in London and in the metropolitan counties? Until Parliament tackles expenditure on political propaganda, the issue will not go away—not even with the present Bill—but will remain for decades.

Mr. Jenkin

I do not think that it is section 137 but section 142 of that Act on which authorities rely for financing Labour party propaganda at the ratepayers' expense. I have already said that the Government are studying urgently whether it is possible to amend the law to stop that abuse. Labour party propaganda should be paid for out of Labour party funds.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

In his alleged statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that the amendment would ban unreasonable actions. Will the right hon. Gentleman define unreasonable actions? Could it be that an action would be unreasonable if the Prime Minister disagreed with it and reasonable if she agreed with it?

Mr. Jenkin

I have already given an indication of what those words imply in my reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while many of us blench at the thought of some members of the Labour party continuing in office even for another week, we are very grateful to him for his concession? Having been the recipient for many years of newspapers that are paid for by the minority of the population who pay rates, we eagerly await and will carefully examine what he intends to do.

Mr. Jenkin

I am well aware of the disquiet that the vast propaganda campaign which is conducted at ratepayers' expense has aroused. I assure my hon. Friend that we are examining the issue with great urgency.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government's excuse about abolition being in their election manifesto is extremely weak, as there are many proposals in a manifesto and people vote on the whole document rather than on individual issues? Does he agree that this issue is one of the most important that we have confronted for some time, as it affects local democracy? The people decided that they wanted metropolitan county councils and the GLC and the only way in which to prove the will of the people was to have an election. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid to put the matter to that test because the Government are hated and the Prime Minister is discredited?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman has given the House a clear idea of the importance that he attaches to any manifesto on which he fights an election.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

I thank my right hon. Friend for doing what is right. Will he reflect on the difficulty that will face the House next year when it tries to get the Bill that abolishes the GLC and the metropolitan counties through in good time to make proper, sensible and realistic provisions for takeover as early as 1986? Will he, during the next few weeks, reflect on the implications of what I have said?

Mr. Jenkin

That matter has been at the forefront of my mind and the minds of my advisers since we started preparing this legislation immediately after the general election. It is of the utmost importance that we secure as smooth and as satisfactory a handover of the functions to lower-tier authorities as we can. The level of our success will depend on the co-operation that we receive from upper-tier authorities after the main abolition Bill is through.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow)

Is the Secretary of State claiming that there would be no political disadvantage to the Conservative party if the people of London and the metropolitan counties were allowed to vote next year?

Mr. Jenkin

I have already explained why it would not be in accordance with precedent and why it would not make sense to have elections while the main Bill was proceeding through Parliament. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his response today to the vote in another place is something that we regard as entirely proper? We expect a Conservative Government to take account of votes in another place. The fact that he has resisted the temptation to suggest that the other place should be steamrollered reflects great credit on him.

Mr. Jenkin

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement has not got rid of the constitutional argument that he will abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties before the abolition Bill has passed through this House and another place? Will he make a further statement on exactly what he means by "certain measures" that he will take between now and the abolition of the councils, if that happens? Perhaps some Conservative Back Benchers would like to comment on the propaganda campaign in national newspapers being conducted by the National Coal Board on the coal dispute before they—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Jenkin

So far as that supplementary question was relevant to the matter under discussion, the answer to the first part is that the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The answer to the second part is that—

Mr. Barron

There will be no elections.

Mr. Jenkin

—while the hon. Gentleman referred to abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, they will remain until April 1986, and that is why I said that the hon. Gentleman got it wrong.

Mr. Tim Eggar (Enfield, North)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for his announcement today, particularly as my constituents, who are representative of many people in outer London, are fed up with decisions on local issues being taken at county hall rather than locally by their councils? Is he further aware that they will particularly welcome his promise about section 142?

Mr. Jenkin

Those were certainly the arguments which persuaded a large number of Labour Members before the election to recognise that the GLC should be abolished.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

May I remind the Secretary of State that a few minutes ago he told the House that his Government were flexible and listened to public opinion? May I further remind him that there is no body of opinion in London or the metropolitan counties which supports his plan to abolish the authorities or the elections? In view of his claim to listen to people, should he not now respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and say whether he thinks that he has a future as Secretary of State and whether he intends to resign?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Dr. Cunningham

How can the Secretary of State support what he is now proposing when he specifically minuted his Cabinet colleagues against this course of action a few months ago, a course of action which the Prime Minister rejected in the House of Commons at Question Time? Why does the right hon. Gentleman—I am choosing my words carefully—repeat the deception that what he is doing has precedents? There is no precedent. When LCC councillors had their terms extended in 1963, before the creation of the GLC, elections to the new GLC followed; and when the metropolitan counties were established in 1972, elections to the county boroughs due for abolition were allowed to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman is deceiving the House of Commons in saying that he is following precedent.

Why will he not deal with the point that I put to him at the beginning? The central objection to the Bill, as expressed by the amendment carried in another place, is in no way met by what he is now proposing to do.

Mr. Jenkin

It would be improper for me to comment on what may happen in another place when the amendments are tabled.

Dr. Cunningham

Answer the question.

Mr. Jenkin

On the question of precedent, it is the hon. Gentleman who is seeking to mislead the House.

Dr. Cunningham

What is the precedent?

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Jenkin

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply — [Interruption.] On the occasion that he mentioned, there were new authorities for which elections had to be held. In the present case there are existing authorities for which elections will be held in 1986, in the ordinary way, and to describe this as a corruption of democracy, or whatever other phrases are used, is absolute nonsense.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We shall undoubtedly return to this matter.