HC Deb 07 March 1984 vol 55 cc849-52
17. Mr. James Lamond

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has read the final report published by Coopers and Lybrand on 22 February covering the costs of his proposals to abolish the metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lamond

In that case, the Secretary of State will have noticed that this careful analysis of the costs involved in the reorganising of local government means that, realistically, the ratepayers and taxpayers will be faced with an extra £40 million a year in costs, while the effectiveness and efficiency of local government will be reduced. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the detailed discussions that went on in Committee on the 1972 measure, when the reorganisation was being put through by the then Tory Government, and the high hopes that were held out? What has changed the opinion of the Government?

Mr. Jenkin

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will know that the proportion of administrators in the Health Service has consistently fallen in the last four or five years as a proportion of the total cost of the NHS. I entirely reject what the hon. Gentleman said. The study shows, as we have always said, that there is opportunity for savings because of the abolition of the metropolitan counties, and I am confident that when the boroughs and districts come to decide how to run these services they will find substantial savings. The study also shows that the wild claims of huge extra costs that are being put out in the propaganda of the metropolitan county councils are ludicrous exaggerations.

Mr. W. Benyon

Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's last reply that his Department agrees with the figures quoted in the Coopers and Lybrand report?

Mr. Jenkin

We have always made it clear—and nothing in the report has changed our view—that it is not possible to do a detailed analysis of the costs and savings until the lower tier authorities have decided precisely how they will manage the services that will devolve upon them. We remain confident that the removal of an entire tier of local government will enable us to achieve significant savings.

Mr. Alton

Does the Secretary of State not accept that even those of us who have some sympathy with his avowed objectives are worried, especially about the provision of finance for the arts? How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make savings by the abolition of arts committees, and what plans does he have to establish joint boards or nationally funded arts operations in the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Jenkin

We are considering the many recommendations made to us on this subject. It is not part of the Government's intention that the restructuring Of local government in the metropolitan areas should result in a reduction of support for the arts. We are concerned to find the best way of making sure that support for the arts can continue.

Dr. Cunningham

The Secretary of State is in grave danger of being charged with misleading the House. Why does he now say that it is impossible to make a detailed financial examination of the case for abolishing the metropolitan counties, when the Conservative general election campaign guide contained the figure of £120 million for the saving, and when he himself placed in die Government Whips' Lobby a few weeks ago a document containing a similar claim? Why does the Secretary of State refuse to be candid with the House on this matter? Why does he also consistently refuse to place in the Library the submissions and evidence received by his Department from about 1,500 bodies?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that it would be totally without precedent for the Government to place in the Library the whole of the very substantial volume of evidence that we have received. We have published a list of the main organisations — local authorities and other substantial representative organisations—which presented evidence. It is there, and it is for the Library to secure the copies of that. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of bellowing from a sedentary position, he might learn something.

Dr. Cunningham

Not very much.

Mr. Jenkin

What I have said—there is no conflict here—is that it is not possible to analyse the savings in detail until we know how the lower tier authorities will manage the services. Where detailed analyses are being made, they show that significant savings can be made.

Dr. Cunningham

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that I hope he is not seeking to extend Question Time, which has already lasted for an extra two minutes.

Dr. Cunningham

I am raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I seek your assistance on behalf of my hon. Friends. How can anyone make a rational examination of the evidence in these matters when the Government consistently refuse to make that evidence available to Parliament?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not responsible for any answers given from the Front Bench.