HC Deb 11 July 1984 vol 63 cc1021-5
4. Mr. Wareing

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received to publish the responses to White Paper, Cmnd. 9063, "Streamlining the Cities"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick. Jenkin

I have received a number of such requests, but I remain of the view that it is for those who sent in responses to the White Paper to decide whether to publish them.

Mr. Wareing

Is the Secretary of State aware that many of the organisations which responded made it clear that they wished their responses to be made available to Members of Parliament and to the public, including the Liverpool Council for Voluntary Studies, which wrote to him on 9 May, and the Merseyside Unemployment Centre, which wrote to him on 12 May? Should not the responses be fully published before his produces his White Paper in the autumn?

Mr. Jenkin

It would be without precedent for the Government to make available to the public or to hon. Members, other than by placing lists in the Library, the detailed responses which have been sent in by a very large number of organisations. A great many organisations have made their responses available to hon. Members, and there is no reason why others which wish hon. Members to see what they have said should not do the same.

Mr. Heddle

While condemning the £6 million of ratepayers' money which Mr. Livingstone has squandered on a specious PR campaign, may I ask my right hon. Friend now to spell out loudly, clearly and continually the advantages in the demolition of an expensive and insensitive tier of bureaucracy?

Mr. Jenkin

The whole Government will spell out the advantages of the abolition of the upper tier authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend noted the speech that I made in Islington last Friday and the speech that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made in the City on the same day. We intend to sustain this campaign.

Mr. Litherland

Is the Minister aware that a great number of disabled people at present employed by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils fear for their jobs? Is he further aware that they place no credence on the Minister's statement that he will leave the matter to the bodies that take over, because that does not give them a guarantee of employment, but merely represents a further abrogation by the Government of their responsibilities?

Mr. Jenkin

I hope that all those who are concerned about the future of their jobs—including the disabled, for whom we have much sympathy —. with these authorities will bring pressure to bear on their employers and trade unions to lift their futile embargo on discussions about the future of this policy. We are making arrangements in the paving Bill for a staff commission, but such a commission can be effective only if the trade unions are prepared to talk to it and to co-operate. At the moment there is no sign of that co-operation.

Mr. Dykes

Will my right hon. Friend give a little more information about the nature of the parliamentary document that he intends to submit in the coming weeks to deal with this issue? How does he react to the latest suggestion of Alan Greengross and his colleagues at County hall?

Mr. Jenkin

My right hon. Friencls and I have discussed Mr. Greengross's proposals. We have had to make it clear that the Government's policy does not envisage the kind of arrangements that Mr. Greengross is putting forward. The document, which I hope to publish before the House rises, will consist essentially of summary description of the destination of the various functions of the GLC and the metropolitan councils. It will be seen from that that the great majority of those functions will be devolved to the local democratic authorities, the borough councils in London and the district councils in the metropolitan areas.

Mr. Chris Smith

Did the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" contain any proposals for placing restraints on the spending powers of the GLC or the metropolitan authorities? If not, does the right hon. Gentleman have any proposals for public consultation of any such proposals before he comes with them to this House or another place?

Mr. Jenkin

The threats that have been made by some of the upper tier authorities to engage in what I have heard described as a scorched earth policy have made it necessary, to protect the interests of successor authorities and their ratepayers, for us to take steps to prevent the abuse of these powers. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the detailed amendments, which will be tabled later today in another place.

Sir Anthony Grant

Has my right hon. Friend received any requests, in connection with streamlining local government or anything else, that he should continue to treat Liverpool no differently from any other local authority? Is he aware that more public money and attention have been devoted to that area in recent years than to anywhere else, and that the only result has been ever more whining and whingeing from the Left-wing commissars there? Is he further aware that the rest of the country's ratepayers and taxpayers are fed up with it?

Mr. Jenkin

My hon. Friend will have taken comfort from what the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, which was that Liverpool remains subject to exactly the same rules as every other local authority in England. As my right hon. Friend said, there are no concessions to Liverpool on GREA, targets, block grant, penalties or disregards. The same rules apply to Liverpool as apply to all other authorities.

Mr. Alton

Does the Secretary of State accept that the signal that appears to have been sent to moderate Labour leaders and to moderate councils throughout the land is that the Government will give way to intimidation, blackmail, bludgeoning and threats of riots? Does he accept that every offer that he has made under the housing investment programme and the inner city partnership programme was on offer from the beginning, and that all that has happened is that ratepayers in Liverpool have lost about £2 million, the sum that has had to be borrowed from other services, as a result of the confrontation?

Mr. Jenkin

I hope that the leaders and councillors in other town and city halls will not be bamboozled by Councillor Hatton's rhetoric. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, for there has been nothing accorded to Liverpool that could not have been perfectly well discussed within the partnership arrangements and the inner city partnership programme, the arrangements of which are exactly the same as those that apply to the other six partnership authorities. I accept that Liverpool has serious inner city problems, and the urban policy is there to help with those problems. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that nothing has been agreed with Liverpool, despite all the rhetoric that is coming from the Liverpool city hall, which could not have been negotiated in the ordinary course of events.

Mr. Allan Roberts

The Minister was to abolish elections in the metropolitan counties and in London to prevent Kever Coombes and Ken Livingstone from having an extra year in office. He is now to abolish elections to enable them to have an extra year in office. Which course does he think is the less democratic?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. The elections are being abolished because it is without precedent to hold elections for councils that have less than a year to run.

Mr. Favell

Can my right hon. Friend estimate how many county council employees are engaged on propaganda programmes, and can he say what they should really be doing with their time?

Mr. Jenkin

This is a classic example of where many authorities — the GLC and the Greater Manchester council are perhaps the worst examples—appear to have no functions left except to campaign expensively for their own useless survival. I think that in so doing they are making the case for their abolition.

Dr. Cunningham

How can the Secretary of State make claims about better administration and the saving of money by abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties when he refuses to publish the evidence or any financial analysis? May I remind him that his own reorganisation of the NHS has resulted in an increase in administrators of 2,300, as a consequence of which administrators now form a higher percentage of those employed in the Health Service than previously? That is an unenviable record.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the article in The Sunday Times which suggested that he and the Prime Minister were going to introduce harsher penalties and disqualifications for elected councillors under an Act which is 100 years old and unique to Britain? Should not the surcharge be abolished?

Mr. Jenkin

I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the terms of the amendments to be tabled later today in another place. Although the first part of his question is essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, the hon. Gentleman will find if he examines the figures closely—

Dr. Cunningham

They are in Hansard.

Mr. Jenkin

—that the administrative costs of the NHS as a proportion of total spending have fallen steadily in recent years.

Dr. Cunningham

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall take points of order afterwards. To do so now would take time from questions. Later—

Mr. Speaker

I shall now take the point of order.

Dr. Cunningham

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my supplementary question the Secretary of State seemed to say that the number of administrators employed in the Health Service had gone down—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are in a difficulty here. This Question Time has dealt with environmental matters, which have nothing to do with the Health Service. Because of the limitation of time, I should not wish to go back to a matter that has nothing to do with this Question Time, but as the Secretary of State said this, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to raise his point of order.

Dr. Cunningham

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The argument was about reorganisation of services, and the Secretary of State implied that the reorganisation of the Health Service had resulted in fewer staff being employed. That is wrong, as an answer by the Prime Minister on 3 July showed.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have any further extension of Question Time.

Mr. Dykes

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Cannot the House be protected from Opposition spokesmen, from the Leader downwards, who seek to prolong the arguments of Question Time by making spurious points of order?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That could go for the whole House.