HC Deb 09 May 1984 vol 59 cc967-84

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Heath

All that it would need is a short enabling Bill which can be produced at any time between now and the time for the next local elections, saying that the elections are cancelled but that the councillors' term continues until the new organisation is introduced or it is decided not to change the organisation. That is all that is required, instead of producing this Bill, with all its dangers to the standing of the House of Commons, our party, which we are entitled to consider from this side of the Committee, and our democratic procedures.

I beg the Secretary of State to consider seriously the proposal which is now being put. The further he goes along this path, the more difficult it will become to take any action which will be acceptable not just to the people of the capital and the great conurbations but to people in this country generally. What is more, it will become less and less acceptable to people of our party as they realise the opportunities that will be given to another party when it comes into government, if it desires to quote this as a precedent and use it for its own actions.

We should have fought such a proposition if it had come from the Opposition, but not in the soft way that we have heard today. We would have fought it absolutely and completely. We must recognise that it is entirely unacceptable. We would never have allowed others to do it; it is time that we recognised that frankly and openly, and if the Secretary of State did, he would earn great respect.

Mr. Corbyn

It is curious to end a speech by attacking the Opposition for opposing something to which one is opposed. I cannot imagine that it will get the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) back into much favour with the leadership.

We are in an incredible position. Instead of facing up to the problems of Greater London and the metropolitan county areas and the many difficulties that go with them, the Government are trying to force through, in this disgraceful manner, a Bill to abolish elections. [Interruption.]

Mr. Tony Banks

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Hon. Members may wish to resume their places in other bars, but I wish that those who are staying could be allowed to hear.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstong)

Order. I hope that hon. Members who are leaving will leave quietly.

Mr. Corbyn

Clearly those hon. Members are not happy with what is being said. Most of them have not listened to what is being said in opposition to this disgraceful and tawdry Bill. When the Secretary of State speaks later he might care to tell the Committee what is going through his mind. The Secretary of State is former councillor from the area where I served for nine years as a borough councillor, and he was also involved in the county council there. How would he have reacted if he had been told that his authority was about to become a quango and that his services as an elected member were no longer required? He is remembered, if not with affection, in the old Hornsey borough council, certainly for his sterling work in keeping floodlights outside his house during the three-day week while inside he was cleaning his teeth in the dark.

This Bill is a sudden turn-around in the history of elected bodies in London and the metropolitan councils. There is a history of a continuing struggle by the people in the urban areas for elected representatives because they know that the only way in which they can achieve the needs of housing, jobs, education, public health, drainage or road repairs—all the needs that matter for urban life—is through elected representatives.

This Bill is an attempt by the Government to remove that right of elected representatives. They are removing it under a cloak of secrecy. They are refusing to publish the details of opposition to their legislation and are refusing to say how many people have written in with opposition to their legislation. They have consistently refused to answer individual hon. Members' questions about what volume of opposition has come from their constituencies.

I have received several hundred letters from people in my constituency about their concern and their fear at the prospect of losing an elected authority across London, and they demand the right of election. Had those people the right to speak in this debate tonight, I am sure that not only would they show their opposition to the principles of the Bill, but they would tell the Government that if they are serious in proposals that would take away so many democratic rights for Londoners and the other metropolitan areas, the least that they can do is set up a commission of inquiry, in which the people's views can be heard. It is unprecedented for such a Bill to be proposed when people do not have the right to say what should go in place of what the Bill abolishes.

If people in my constituency of Islington, North, which is part of Greater London and is a poor, inner urban area, were to say anything to such a commission, they would be making a comparison between their experiences of an appointed authority—their local district health authority — and their experiences with the elected local government. Almost weekly, the health authority receives edicts from the DHSS via the regional health authority telling it that our Health Service is too good—we have too many hospitals, too many hospital beds, too many places for the elderly and mentally handicapped—and asking us to make cuts. Local people object to that, go back to the local quango and ask what can be done about it. The quango points up a tree to the next appointed quango, which points its fingers further up the tree to the Minister.

That can be compared with the people's experience of the elected local authority. If they do not like the way in which the local authority is administering the housing services or the way that roads are being repaired or the way that social service departments are being run, they have the right to go to a borough council. If they do not like the strategic decisions that are being made in London, they have the right to go to the elected members of the Greater London council.

There are a couple of points to be made about this. For example, where is the democracy in planning in London if elected representatives will no longer have the right to object to major road schemes or propose improvements in the railways? Instead, there will be an appointed quango, perhaps of interested parties. In any event, it will be an appointed quango that will not be interested in the views of the people in London, but merely interested in doing whatever the Minister tells it to do because that is the only place to which it will be answerable.

The Bill is a dangerous centralisation of power in the hands of Ministers. It is especially disgraceful that that dangerous centralisation of power should take place without publication of the views of the number of people who have objected to it or of the new methods proposed for government in London.

We know that of the 31 London borough councils, 13 have registered themselves as totally opposed to the legislation, four of them are opposed on major issues, three are neutral, eight give qualified support and three of them give unreserved support. In case Committee members did not know, the majority of London borough councils are controlled by the Conservative party. What notice have the Government taken of objections raised by Conservative borough councils, let alone Labour councils?

The same story can be heard in every metropolitan county where the proposals are being put into force. The only conclusion that can be drawn by hon. Members and the public in my constituency is that the Bill, particularly clause 1, is part of a political vendetta and an act of spite. The elected metropolitan councils and the GLC have sought to be good elected representatives of the people and to stand by the manifestos on which they fought elections. They have faced the problems of the people whom they represent, the spiral of decline in the inner cities, the loss of jobs and houses and the general loss of opportunity. The authorities have tried to regenerate the inner city areas.

The Government cannot tolerate that sort of opposition. They have adopted an off-with-their-heads formula and are trying to destroy local government as we know it. If hon. Members do not recognise that the destruction of elections at this level could lead to the destruction of democracy at many other levels they are failing in their duty as elected representatives of the people.

The Bill is the start of a dangerous spiral of decline in British democracy. The Government cannot stomach any sort of opposition at any level. They lecture the miners on the need for a ballot, yet they take away the right to a ballot from those in inner cities who face daily crises of existence and survival.

I hope that Committee members recognise the inherent dangers and, for once in their lives, will stand up and say that the most important thing is the right to vote and to elect representatives; the right not to be ruled over by hand-picked appointees of Ministers. That is what is at stake tonight.

Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central)

I shall be brief, but I believe that the voice of Greater Manchester should be added to the roar of disapproval against these proposals. I have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). They both have different ideals.

The hon. Member for Selly Oak has a reputation in local government. He spoke from the heart, because he knows that the decline in democracy will have a disastrous effect upon local government. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup recognises the effects of the change on his party when he says that we are on a disastrous course. He is right to say that we are on a disastrous course. The Conservative party is moving to the Right so fast that it is frightening to some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen among the long-standing members of the Conservative party.

Greater Manchester council, together with the other five metropolitan county councils, will be abolished by the Government without consultation or investigation. Amendment No. 2 is concerned with that. The government have published a White Paper suggesting that the county councils have found it difficult to establish a role and that the present system is a recipe for conflict and uncertainty. According to the White Paper, the abolition of the metropolitan counties would save money, after transitional costs have been taken into account. I hope the Secretary of State will explain to the Committee the Government's evidence to support that case.

Mr. Boyes

Does my hon. Friend remember that, when we debated the Bill on 11 April, the Secretary of State told us why the metropolitan counties were not co-operating and giving information to the Government. He said:

One consequence of the boycott of discussions has been that we have not yet had such information as we need to make a reasonably accurate assessment of the costs and savings. He followed that up by saying: The Government remain convinced that abolition will save money."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 413.] Does my hon. Friend also realise that in April 1984 the Association of British Chambers of Commerce said:

It has become urgent for the Secretary of State to provide a detailed breakdown of the savings expected and clear guidance … on where and how economies should be obtained. Only if such evidence and guidance is forthcoming can the continued support of the business community for abolition be counted upon". That reinforces my hon. Friend's point. The Secretary of State is convincing nobody.

10.15 pm
Mr. Litherland

My hon. Friend is right. There have been so many quotations from the Secretary of State on democracy and local government that in a short time he will have to eat his words. He has been damned from his own mouth.

The assumptions that have been made against the metropolitan counties are unsupported by evidence. It is that evidence that we want to be shown. There is a complete lack of understanding of the machinery and the function of the services provided by the metropolitan counties.

Greater Manchester council is adamant that the proposals, if implemented, will lead to greater cost, reduced services and more bureaucracy and will take us further down the sinister path to increased centralism.

It has been said over and over again that the proposal to cancel local elections represents a fundamental attack on local democracy and will leave a void in local government. That will bring about disastrous effects on the services they now provide. In Greater Manchester that would involve the police and fire services, passenger transport, strategic planning, consumer protection, waste disposal and economic development services. The destination of those services will not be made known, nor will they be debated in the House, until some future date. Yet the present controlling authorities will be abolished. Where is the democracy, the logic or sanity in such a decision?

The Secretary of State must realise from the responses that he has received—approximately 3,000—that there is overwhelming opposition across the political spectrum in local government to the Government's White Paper. Out of the 3,000 responses, how many were for and how many were against? I think that we would find that very few supported the proposals that are now before us and that the vast majority condemn the Government. I suggest that the main theme running through all the objections was the lack of consultation; the lack of appraisal of the views of other interested parties to the Government's proposals.

As we listen to the chatter from the Conservative Benches, this is the end of democracy. Conservative Members are showing how much they care about local government. They come from the bars and pay no attention to what is going on. Those are the people who will end local democracy.

Above all, the future of local democracy is my concern. I am sure that it is also the concern of those responsible Conservative Members who have listened to the debate.

The chief executive of Greater Manchester insists that the wrong issue is being considered here tonight. A proper consideration of change should look at the finance, the structure and functions of local government. Writing to me on behalf of the metropolitan county councils for Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, West Midlands and West Yorkshire, he said:

The answer will not be found in tinkering with the structure of local government in metropolitan areas alone. It is regrettable that a full inquiry into the structure, functions and finance of local government has not been pursued prior to the intervention of this piecemeal legislation. It might be said that they have a vested interest, being executives of county councils, but what about the champions of the Conservative party who are always running down local authorities, saying that the rates are too high? I refer to the members of the chambers of commerce who say that they will support abolition conditional upon evidence of genuine cost savings. The chambers' paper warns:

Only if evidence and guidance is forthcoming can the continued support of the business community for abolition be counted upon … The glaring absence hitherto of any detailed Government costings of either the transitional or the long-term financial implications for streamlining has prompted some chambers to call for an independent inquiry into the financial aspects of abolition. That comes from the Government's friends. [Interruption.]

I ask the Secretary of State to listen to the deafening roar not of some of the drunks on his Benches—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that such remarks are not permissible.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Litherland

I withdraw the remark. I respect your chairmanship, Mr. Armstrong. However, there are times when it is excusable, in my view, for an hon. Member to feel aggrieved if he tries to make a point and cannot hear himself talking because of babble from Government supporters.

I hope that the Secretary of State will think again, unless he wants to go down in history as the Minister who destroyed local democracy and brought shame to his party by moving to a centralist and authoritarian, dictatorial Government. It is not right to say that Whitehall knows better than the town hall. We have a democratic procedure. If we do not want county councils or if we do not want rate capping, we have the ballot box. That is where democracy should remain.

Mr. Straw

This has been a spirited debate, with important contributions coming from both sides of the Committee.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was right to say that, although supporters of the amendment might lose the vote, the argument was being won. There is no doubt about that, and it has been reflected not only in the quality of the speeches supporting the amendments but also in the results of the local elections last week in every area apart from Greater London and in the results of public opinion polls in Greater London. Given the right hon. Gentleman's record of opposition to his Government, we all understand and treat with charity his need for the occasional ritual flaying of the Opposition, but the proof of the effectiveness of our opposition to the Bill is shown clearly in the results of last week's local elections and will be demonstrated even more in future local elections up and down the country.

The amendments under discussion fall into four groups. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 propose that there should be inquiries, one established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and the other established under section 49 of the Local Government Act 1972. Amendment No. 4 proposes that there should be an Audit Commission inquiry into the costings of the Government's proposals. Amendment No. 72 proposes that there should be no abolition of elections until a Royal Commission has reported. Amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 10 and new clause 2 propose various time limits and conditions on the operation of the Bill.

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say now that, subject to agreement, we intend to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 2 but that we seek a vote on amendment No. 3, which proposes that an inquiry should be established under the aegis of the Local Government Act 1972, which was approved and pushed through by a Conservative Administration. Section 49 of that Act provided the power of review between 10 or 15 years later. We shall also vote on amendment No. 72, which proposes that the elections should not be cancelled until the Royal Commission has reported.

We have listened to several speeches by the Secretary of State during the past six months seeking to defend his proposals to emasculate local democracy and to take upon himself the powers of local councils. However, although I might be an aficionado of his speeches I have rarely heard such an unconvincing defence of a case as that which he offered to the Committee this afternoon. It was least convincing of all when he told the Committee that what he was doing was consistent with precedent. It is strange that the Secretary of State would bother about precedent, because this is supposed to be a radical Thatcherite Government, who have given up the past and are enbarking upon an entirely new course that is inconsistent with the traditions of the Conservative party. The newborn Thatcherites make a virtue of the fact that there is no precedent in British history for this action.

However, I suppose that we must understand the political schizophrenia of the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said in a wicked Daily Telegraph article just before Christmas, whatever the destination of the train, the Secretary of State always has a ticket on it. Ten years ago his wagon was hitched to the engine of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Then he was going in one direction, but now he is going in another.

The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the Committee or himself by saying that there is a precedent for his proposals. If he believes that there is, why have no previous Conservative Administrations introduced such paving Bills? There is a complete contrast between the Secretary of State's proposals and the proposals of previous Conservative Administrations. In the previous reorganisations, the proposals to deal with the retiring councils were contained in the substantive legislation, and the elections to those authorities took place even while that substantive legislation was going through. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will confirm that in 1972, there were elections to the old authorities at the same time as his Local Government Bill was going through the House. Elections were not abandoned until the end of 1972, and those people elected until the end of 1972 continued in office until the successor authorities took over in 1974.

There is no precedent either for a paving Bill or for abolishing elections before both Houses of Parliament have approved the substantive change, not just on Second Reading, but throughout all our procedures, and it has received Royal Assent. I hope that we shall hear no more from the Secretary of State about following precedent. If he were in the least concerned about this argument, he would try to gain merit from the fact that he is trying to do something new. He should have the courage to stand before the Committee and defend what he is doing.

We know why the Secretary of State is doing this. It is not because it is administratively convenient to abolish elections before successor councils are in place; indeed, it is an administrative nightmare to do it in this way. He is doing it this way because he is frightened of the results of the elections. He has virtually admitted that. There is no other reason.

10.30 pm

Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that every previous major change in local government has been preceded by a major inquiry. It is important that the Committee take that on board. We are all aware that in local government, indeed in the whole machinery of government, ideas take a long time to come to fruition. In my judgment, that is important, because it is self-evident that the machinery of government has a great impact upon people. It is of crucial importance that the decisions made by the House should command the widest possible support, and be likely to prove the most durable.

It is perfectly conceivable that in 1957 the Conservative party instead of deciding to establish a Royal Commission, could have chosen to follow the course that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and a committee of Conservative councillors in London had decided was best, to have seven separate unitary authorities within what is now roughly speaking the Greater London council area. The Conservative party had the majority to do that, and at that stage it could probably have got it through, because the idea of a Greater London council at that stage was seen as a Morrisonian Labour concept, and not as a Conservative concept. But it is to the credit of the then Prime Minister, the then Mr. Harold Macmillan, that he decided not just to accept what one part of the Conservative party was at that stage saying, but to recognise instead that the future of London government had much wider repercussions, and ought to be the subject of a Royal Commission, and subject to a Royal Commission it was.

The same was true with my own party in the mid 1960s. We had our ideas about how we could reorganise local government, and we could have said, "Fine, we will go ahead with them, never mind the Opposition." But the then Prime Minister, the then Mr. Harold Wilson, proposed, and correctly so, that there should be another Royal Commission to consider the future of local government outside Greater London.

It is the case that one can never secure a total consensus upon a Royal Commission report in an area as potentially controversial as local government, but the careful and deliberate progress of issues through a Royal Commission secures widespread agreement about the need for change. Whatever arguments may have followed the Herbert commission in 1960, or the Redcliffe-Maud commission in 1969, nobody disputed that by that stage change there had to be.

The first charge against the Government is that they have not produced the case for change in the way in which they have put it forward. We have quoted the speech of the Secretary of State to the last Conservative party conference. I have been listening to the words of the Secretary of State. Where is the case for change, in the way in which he puts it forward? All that he can point to—and it is a matter to which I shall come later—is the alleged cost savings, but those are highly questionable, and by themselves do not add up to a case for change. He has failed in any way to develop a consensus, even within his own party, about the case for change.

I accept that, in this area, one cannot please all the people all the time. The proposals for change in local government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup were controversial, as were those of the present Secretary of State for Education, when he piloted through the London Government Act 1963. It is fair to say of the proposals of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that, in regard to the metropolitan areas, they followed pretty faithfully the proposals of the Redcliffe Maud commission established by the previous Labour Government, because the Redcliffe-Maud commission proposed that there should be two-tier government in the metropolitan areas. The Labour Government in a White Paper in 1969 accepted that, as did the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. So there was a consensus about that, albeit that there were, of course, arguments about some of the details, and particularly about the future of county boroughs in the non-metropolitan areas such as Nottingham, Plymouth, Leicester and, dare I say it, Blackburn.

But the situation now is quite different, and the Secretary of State does not have any consensus for the change that he proposes. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in what he seeks to say about the cost savings that will follow if the proposals go through. The only case that he has made for the change is that millions of pounds will be saved. But again, it illustrates the bankruptcy of the Secretary of State's case that it has taken him a full 11 months just to provide us with the barest details with which to substantiate his case that millions of pounds could be saved.

I remind Conservative Members that the halcyon days of the last general election will never be repeated. Incidentally, we all welcome the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) to the Chamber, and look forward to her maiden speech. However, she is proof that those halcyon days are unlikely to be repeated for a very long time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young)

What was the hon. Gentleman's majority?

Mr. Straw

My majority was larger than the hon. Lady's, and my seat was classified as marginal while her seat was classified as a safe one.

During the last general election, the Conservative party claimed that there would be a saving of £120 million, and 9,000 jobs if the proposals went through. It is fair to say to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that that was not just a calculation done on the back of an envelope. He is a man who respects the Whips' Office, and later the Whips' Office allowed a statement from the Secretary of State to be placed in its hallowed portals, saying:

A rough estimate is that there is scope for saving at least £.120 million a year, including 9,000 jobs, from abolishing the MCCs and the GLC. That was printed by the Government and is part of the Government's own political propaganda machine. We asked the Secretary of State to provide details of that £120 million. How much would come from the metropolitan counties and the GLC? How did he arrive at the figure of 9,000 for the number of jobs saved?

The Secretary of State wisely referred those questions to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). However, all the Parliamentary Under-Secretary could do was to repeat the question, and say that the figure was based on the loss of 9,000 jobs. When I pressed him again, he said:

I have nothing to add to the answer to the question from the hon. Member on 31 January . . . and the answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 20 December".—[Official Report, 3 February 1984, Vol. 53, c. 416.]

It is a sign of this policy's very bad parentage that, having thought up a policy and a number, the Secretary of State should have been trying to justify it ever since. If there are savings to be made by abolishing the metropolitan counties and the GLC, let them be referred to a fully independent inquiry. The metropolitan counties made it clear early on that they were willing to co-operate in such an inquiry. I hope that the Secretary of State will not slam the door, and that he will hold an inquiry instead of pushing the Bill through.

An inquiry must examine, among other things, whether the Secretary of State's claim that there will be no reduction in services is true. We judge that in order to secure such savings, there are bound to be major reductions in services, and big increases in fares, for example, as well as a much poorer service overall in all the metropolitan areas and within the area of the GLC. The Secretary of State knows full well that the majority of speeches made by Labour Members, by those on the alliance Benches and by those on his own side, have been against the proposals. He lost the argument on Second Reading on 11 April.

The Secretary of State has lost the argument in the country, but it is still not too late for him to save the reputation of his party — that is what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is worried about—for fair dealing, for being concerned about town hall rather than Whitehall, and about the continuation of real democracy. He can secure all those ends by accepting our amendments.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

We have had a wide-ranging debate and rehearsed many of the issues which divide the House on the substance of this Bill and on the issues which will arise in the main abolition Bill when that is brought before the House in the next Session.

One charge levelled at the Government must be firmly nailed, although I would not expect the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to accept my argument. He, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that the Government's motivation in embarking on abolishing the GLC and metropolitan county councils was nothing more than political spite. That is not true. The majority of these authorities have been controlled by Conservatives in the past and, no doubt if they remained, they would be controlled by Conservatives again.

The reason for making the change and for moving towards unitary local government in the big cities, which is spelled out in chapter 1 of "Streamlining the Cities" is primarily to get a better structure for the delivery of services to the people in those areas and to achieve a simpler structure of local government which will produce savings for the citizens in those areas.

The hon. Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) emphasised that it has not yet been possible to give a detailed assessment to the House of precisely what the savings will be. Earlier, I made a full statement about where we stand and undertook that, as and when further information becomes available under the powers contained in the Bill, we shall give figures to the House. We shall give the House our up-to-date estimates and ensure that it has a full statement before we do take the Second Reading of the main abolition Bill.

Mr. Charles Morrison

My right hon. Friend is helpful when he says that figures will be published as soon as they become available. If those figures do not support his case, what will he then do?

Mr. Jenkin

That is a hypothetical question. As I said earlier, I am convinced that the policy will produce savings. As the information becomes available from the successor authorities, we shall begin to see that become more apparent.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West attacked the report from the four London treasurers. One can certainly argue that some of the figures in that report are based upon assumptions about rate support grant distributions which perhaps it is too early to confirm, but that study undoubtedly showed that there would be substantial administrative savings of about £35 million. That is consistent with what I said earlier. There must be savings from the elimination of the GLC bureaucracy.

10.45 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes

The Secretary of State told us earlier that there was evidence to support the proposition that there would be savings. Can he tell the Committee whether the only evidence upon which he bases his case is the report to which he has just referred? If not, where is the rest of it?

Mr. Jenkin

As I said earlier, it is the Price Waterhouse report which was published recently and the analysis of that which has been made in my Department. That is considered to be, if anything, a cautious and conservative estimate of the savings. Of course, that applied only to metropolitan county councils and not to London. There is now evidence corning from a variety of sources which points in the same direction. The broad range of estimates which my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Employment gave before the 1979 election may provide the order of magnitude. That is what is coming.

Mr. Tony Banks

rose—

Mr. Jenkin

I must get on; I think that the Committee is anxious to reach a conclusion on these amendments. I understand that the Committee is anxious for more definite information, and I undertake to give it when it becomes available.

Mr. Straw

May I bring the Secretary of State back to the question of £120 million? He made the claim 11 months ago that £120 million would be saved. What was the evidence then for that claim?

Mr. Jenkin

I made it clear that that was an internal estimate that had been made by officials of the Department on the best information they had available. [Interruption.] It was not in the manifesto. The point is that we always recognised that the information that would be available from the authorities themselves would form the basis of a much firmer estimate.

I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said about the case being not solely about costs and savings. The passage that was quoted earlier in the debate from something that I had said previously made it clear that we are not basing our case solely on costs and savings. It is an important part of the argument. We are certainly against the view put by the hon. Member for Leyton that somehow we want to support regional government. In making his case for the retention of the GLC, he argued that this was a form of regional government. We have never gone in for regional government in England, and we do not want to start down that road now. If local government is about anything, it is about the provision of services in the area. It is not about regional government. Some of the arguments we have heard for the retention of the upper-tier councils seem to smack more of regional government than of the provision of services to the local population.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell) made a forceful speech in which he made it clear that he is in favour of the policy of abolition but that he intensely dislikes the interim arrangements. We shall have an opportunity to argue that more fully when we come to amendment No. 14 to clause 2.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) made a characteristically forceful speech, in which he pointed out that he had opposed the creation of the metropolitan county councils in 1972 because he felt that the big cities should have retained the powers that they had. Therefore, I find. his opposition to the measure puzzling. What we are seeking to do is to return to the big cities the powers that were taken from them. The proposals that we have put before the Committee will go a long way to restore the powers which those big cities had. I share his ambitions that local government in the big cities should become strong and effective. Serious problems affect the major cities, which is why we are spending so much more on urban policy now than when we took power in 1979. It is partly because the big cities do not have the resources to be able to do what is necessary that our urban policy has been necessary. The paving Bill is a step on that road.

Mr. Wareing

Is the right hon. Gentleman now telling us that the fire and police services on Merseyside will go to the Liverpool city council and the four district councils as a result of the Bill that he intends to introduce next Session?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman may have been in the Chamber when I drew attention to a written answer on 4 May, which made it clear that the Government are prepared to include in the Bill—this is a change from the White Paper—a provision that it will be open to the district councils to argue at a later stage that the services should be devolved to them. It will begin as we propose in the White Paper, but there will be an opportunity to opt out of the joint services if a case can be made. That has been welcomed by the larger cities. The Bill is a step along that road, and I hope that it will have the support of those who wish to see local government returned to the big cities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made clear yet again his misgivings not only about the Bill but about the abolition proposals generally. I say to him in all kindness that I think that he has a view of the value of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils that is not widely shared by those who look objectively at what they do and at what they cost. Although he discounts the pressures from lower-tier metropolitan counties for single-tier government, as I said on Second Reading, that pressure has been sustained and well argued and crosses party lines. That was the foundation of the arguments we set out in chapter 1 of "Streamlining the Cities".

My right hon. Friend complained about the lack of information. With great respect to him, I gave a great deal of information during my speech on Second Reading, I gave a long written answer to a parliamentary question on 4 May and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made an important statement about the future of ILEA. All that shows that the Government have made a reality of consultation, and it is against that background that we must look at the plea for an inquiry. I find it a little hard that if we stick to our view we are accused of rigidity, and if we listen to consultations and are willing to make changes in response to the views put to us we are accused of creating uncertainty and a dog's breakfast.

I should much prefer to feel that we have listened to and taken account of the many important views that have been put to us and that we have been prepared to modify our plans accordingly. It is not a new policy that has suddenly sprung from nowhere; it has been long argued by many people. We had long consultations. Against that background we must look at the case for yet a further inquiry.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), in rehearsing earlier inquiries and local government reforms, used the rather remarkable phrase that they had provided long periods of discussion without much action. That has been the pattern in the past. If the Government are to break that pattern, they cannot have only long periods of discussion without much action. Those who have been pressing for this reform are looking for action.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned the Herbert report. A huge amount has changed since that report made its recommendation about the GLC. The GLC has lost a large number of the powers that were the basis of the report's recommendations. He also mentioned the Redcliffe-Maud report. Surely he recognises that the heart of that report was the proposal for unitary single-tier local government. That heart was rejected.

Mr. Straw

The right hon. Gentleman has again misled himself. Redcliffe-Maud did not propose unitary authorities in the metropolitan areas. It proposed — I have the exact text of the proposals with me—that there should be two-tier local government in the metropolitan areas. That was accepted by the Labour Government and then by the Conservative Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.

Mr. Jenkin

It recommended unitary local government for the whole of the rest of the country. [Interruption.] The Labour party wanted unitary local government throughout the country and it put that in its manifesto.

I do not believe that a case has been made out for yet a further inquiry. We have conducted a wide consultation, have taken full account of the large numbers of representations that have been made to us and have announced a series of changes in the proposals, and hon. Members now have many of those details in answers that have been given. I must, therefore, resist the blandishments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to go in for yet a further inquiry. That could only lead, despite what he said, to further delay at a time when people are anxious that, if we are to do this, we should press ahead and bring the changes about according to the timetable that we have proposed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup criticised the proposed arrangements for suspending the elections. I must tell him, with respect, that he was less than fair to the Government. He accused me of making what he called an artificial distinction between the cancellation of elections and what happens afterwards. There is a distinction; there is a precedent that when local government reorganisation is under way and when councils are due to come to an end, there comes a point when elections to those councils are suspended.

What is new on this occasion — I have made no bones about this—is that, unlike previous occasions, we now have in existence new authorities which will inherit the services. The question that we shall need to argue when we come to the relevant amendment on clause 2 is whether, having cancelled the elections, we allow the existing councils to run on, or whether we allow the nominated councillors from the borough and district councils to run the councils in the interim year. That is a separate and real argument and we shall come to it in due course.

Mr. Spearing

The right hon. Gentleman does not know the meaning of his own proposals.

Mr. Jenkin

I cannot advise the Committee to accept this series of amendments, and I hope that they will be rejected.

Dr. Cunningham

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert `and no such order shall be made before the Secretary of State has, pursuant to section 49 of the principal Act, directed the English Commission to review the areas of Greater London and the metropolitan counties and has laid before each House of Parliament an order to give effect, with or without modification, to proposals formulated and submitted to him by the Commission under sections 47 or 48 of the principal Act'. — [Dr. Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 319.

Division No. 283] [11 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo Corbett, Robin
Anderson, Donald Corbyn, Jeremy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Cowans, Harry
Ashdown, Paddy Craigen, J. M.
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Cunningham, Dr John
Ashton, Joe Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Deakins, Eric
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Dewar, Donald
Barnett, Guy Dixon, Donald
Barron, Kevin Dobson, Frank
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Dormand, Jack
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Douglas, Dick
Beith, A. J. Dubs, Alfred
Bell, Stuart Duffy, A. E. P.
Benn, Tony Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Dykes, Hugh
Benyon, William Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Bermingham, Gerald Ewing, Harry
Bidwell, Sydney Faulds, Andrew
Blair, Anthony Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Boyes, Roland Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Fisher, Mark
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Flannery, Martin
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Forrester, John
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Foster, Derek
Buchan, Norman Foulkes, George
Caborn, Richard Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) George, Bruce
Campbell, Ian Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Campbell-Savours, Dale Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Godman, Dr Norman
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Golding, John
Clarke, Thomas Gourlay, Harry
Clay, Robert Ground, Patrick
Clwyd, Ms Ann Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Cohen, Harry Haynes, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Conlan, Bernard Heffer, Eric S.
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) Hicks, Robert
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Penhaligon, David
Home Robertson, John Pike, Peter
Howells, Geraint Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hoyle, Douglas Prescott, John
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Radice, Giles
Hughes, Roy (Newport East) Randall, Stuart
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) Rathbone, Tim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Redmond, M.
John, Brynmor Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Richardson, Ms Jo
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Kirkwood, Archibald Robertson, George
Knox, David Rogers, Allan
Lamond, James Rooker, J. W.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Rowlands, Ted
Litherland, Robert Sedgemore, Brian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Sheerman, Barry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Shore, Rt Hon Peter
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
McKelvey, William Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Maclennan, Robert Skinner, Dennis
McNamara, Kevin Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
McTaggart, Robert Snape, Peter
McWilliam, John Spearing, Nigel
Madden, Max Steel, Rt Hon David
Marek, Dr John Stott, Roger
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Strang, Gavin
Martin, Michael Straw, Jack
Maxton, John Tapsell, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Meacher, Michael Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Tinn, James
Michie, William Torney, Tom
Mikardo, Ian Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Miscampbell, Norman Wainwright, R.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) Wallace, James
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Walters, Dennis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Wareing, Robert
Nellist, David Weetch, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Williams, Rt Hon A.
O'Brien, William Winnick, David
O'Neill, Martin Wrigglesworth, Ian
Park, George
Parry, Robert Tellers for the Ayes:
Patchett, Terry Mr. James Hamilton and
Pendry, Tom Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.
NOSE
Adley, Robert Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Aitken, Jonathan Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Alexander, Richard Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Braine, Sir Bernard
Amess, David Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Arnold, Tom Bright, Graham
Ashby, David Brinton, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Brooke, Hon Peter
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Browne, John
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Bruinvels, Peter
Batiste, Spencer Bryan, Sir Paul
Beggs, Roy Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Bellingham, Henry Buck, Sir Antony
Bendall, Vivian Budgen, Nick
Berry, Sir Anthony Bulmer, Esmond
Best, Keith Burt, Alistair
Bevan, David Gilroy Butcher, John
Biffen, Rt Hon John Butler, Hon Adam
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Butterfill, John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Body, Richard Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Carttiss, Michael
Bottomley, Peter Cash, William
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Holt, Richard
Chope, Christopher Hooson, Tom
Churchill, W. S. Hordern, Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Howard, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Clegg, Sir Walter Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Cockeram, Eric Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Colvin, Michael Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Coombs, Simon Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Cope, John Hunt, David (Wirral)
Corrie, John Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Couchman, James Hunter, Andrew
Cranborne, Viscount Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Crouch, David Irving, Charles
Currie, Mrs Edwina Jackson, Robert
Dicks, Terry Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Dorrell, Stephen Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dover, Den Jones, Robert (W Herts)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Eggar, Tim Key, Robert
Evennett, David Kilfedder, James A.
Eyre, Sir Reginald King, Roger (B'ham N field)
Fairbairn, Nicholas King, Rt Hon Tom
Fallon, Michael Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Farr, John Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Favell, Anthony Knowles, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Lamont, Norman
Fletcher, Alexander Lang, Ian
Fookes, Miss Janet Latham, Michael
Forman, Nigel Lawler, Geoffrey
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lawrence, Ivan
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Forth, Eric Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Fox, Marcus Lightbown, David
Franks, Cecil Lilley, Peter
Freeman, Roger Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Gale, Roger Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Galley, Roy Lord, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Lyell, Nicholas
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) McCrea, Rev William
Garel-Jones, Tristan McCurley, Mrs Anna
Glyn, Dr Alan Macfarlane, Neil
Goodhart, Sir Philip MacGregor, John
Goodlad, Alastair MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Gow, Ian Maclean, David John
Gower, Sir Raymond Madel, David
Greenway, Harry Maginnis, Ken
Gregory, Conal Major, John
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) Malins, Humfrey
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Malone, Gerald
Grist, Ian Maples, John
Grylls, Michael Marland, Paul
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Marlow, Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Hampson, Dr Keith Mates, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy Maude, Hon Francis
Hannam, John Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hargreaves, Kenneth Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Harris, David Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Harvey, Robert Mellor, David
Haselhurst, Alan Merchant, Piers
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Mills, 'Iain (Meriden)
Hawksley, Warren Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Hayes, J. Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Hayhoe, Barney Moate, Roger
Heathcoat-Amory, David Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Heddle, John Montgomery, Fergus
Henderson, Barry Moore, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Hickmet, Richard Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hind, Kenneth Moynihan, Hon C.
Hirst, Michael Neale, Gerrard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Needham, Richard
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Nelson, Anthony
Neubert, Michael Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Newton, Tony Roe, Mrs Marion
Nicholls, Patrick Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Normanton, Tom Rost, Peter
Norris, Steven Rowe, Andrew
Onslow, Cranley Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Oppenheim, Philip Ryder, Richard
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Sackville, Hon Thomas
Ottaway, Richard Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Page, Richard (Herts SW) St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil Sayeed, Jonathan
Parris, Matthew Scott, Nicholas
Patten, John (Oxford) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Pattie, Geoffrey Shelton, William (Streatham)
Pawsey, James Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Porter, Barry Shersby, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) Silvester, Fred
Powell, William (Corby) Sims, Roger
Powley, John Skeet, T. H. H.
Price, Sir David Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Prior, Rt Hon James Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Proctor, K. Harvey Soames, Hon Nicholas
Raffan, Keith Speller, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Spencer, Derek
Renton, Tim Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Rhodes James, Robert Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Squire, Robin
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Stanbrook, Ivor
Roberts, Wyn (Convey) Stanley, John
Stern, Michael Waddington, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) Waldegrave, Hon William
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) Walden, George
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Stokes, John Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Stradling Thomas, J. Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Sumberg, David Waller, Gary
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman Warren, Kenneth
Temple-Morris, Peter Watson, John
Terlezki, Stefan Watts, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Wheeler, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Whitfield, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) Wiggin, Jerry
Thornton, Malcolm Wolfson, Mark
Thurnham, Peter Wood, Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington) Woodcock, Michael
Tracey, Richard Yeo, Tim
Trippier, David Young, Sir George (Acton)
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian Tellers for the Noes:
van Straubenzee, Sir W. Mr. Carol Mather and
Vaughan, Sir Gerard Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.