§ 14. Mr. SquireTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's estimate of the number of local government councillors who are currently employed by other local authorities in positions which would he prohibited under proposed legislation.
§ Mr. GummerThe number of councillors in any local authority to whom the restrictions will apply will depend on the extent to which they have been disregarding the tradition of the political neutrality of senior local authority staff. This information is not collected by my Department.
§ Mr. SquireDoes my right hon. Friend agree, none the less, that there is clear evidence of widespread political abuse, particularly where a councillor is subsequently employed as an officer by another authority? Does he further agree that perhaps one of the saddest consequences has been a decline in the quality of chief officers in many authorities, with resulting damage to local government in general?
§ Mr. GummerI am sure that if we want to encourage the best kind of local authority officers they must not feel that there are political reasons for the appointment of senior officers. Nor must they feel that people who are clearly involved in party political activities in one borough pretend to be independent in another.
I also believe that it is impossible for ordinary people to feel comfortable if they go to a local authority officer knowing that in another authority that officer takes party political views of a kind of which they do not approve.
§ Mr. BlunkettWill the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the legislation being referred to, a psychiatric social worker receiving London weighting would fall into the category of "excluded from political activity"; would not be able to stand for election to say, the London borough of Richmond or a constituency such as the Isle of Wight; and would not be elected to Parliament for Surrey, South-West—unlike his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to whom all those things apply?
§ Mr. GummerI confirm that in the country as a whole, people are quite clear. They do not believe that someone can be an independent officer on one authority, paid by the local ratepayers, and be a party political figure elsewhere. Universally, people condemn the Labour party for backing jobs for the boys and girls.
§ Mr. Ian BruceDoes my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) could give the Government a great deal of advice about this abuse of local authority power? He could do that because Sheffield became the Socialist Republic of Sheffield and employed vast numbers of people from other local authorities. That practice spread throughout the north of England. That is an abuse and it is high time that it was stopped.
§ Mr. GummerI have made it quite clear that whether Conservatives or Socialists do that, the practice is wrong. It is clear to the rest of the country that the public are 996 wholly opposed to the way in which the Labour party is defending what has become corruption in local government.
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall now take the point of order of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
§ Mr. Allan RobertsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that Back Benchers have rights—[Interruption.] and my talent is that I have been a Back Bencher longer than I have been a Front Bencher. However, your ruling today implies that Mr. Speaker decides which subjects the official Opposition Front Bench should respond to. Not only that, but Mr. Speaker decides which Front-Bench spokespersons respond to Ministers' replies. I would like some thoughts or responses about this point.
Your ruling also, it seems to me Mr. Speaker, rules out the possibility of the Opposition Front Bench being able to respond to a new factor that emerges during the Ministers' answers and which might have very significant implications, calling for a statement from the Opposition. The Front Bench must have that flexibility.
You were factually inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. There are not eight Opposition Front Benchers, there are only six. There are fewer shadow Ministers than there are Ministers at the Department of the Environment. Having had an indication through the usual channels, or through your assistant, that if I was brief on the first question, I would be called on the second—otherwise I would not have risen on the first question—it seems that you have treated the Opposition Front Bench unfairly. Very serious precedents are being set.
§ Mr. SpeakerFirst, let me say that every hon. Member must catch the eye of the Chair. However, I have an indication about the subjects in which the Front Bench would like to participate. As a general rule, it is only fair to Back Benchers that Front-Bench spokesmen should rise only once. I try not to call any hon. Member more than once at Question Time except perhaps the No. 1 spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is not the No. 1 spokesman and every time a Front-Bench spokesman rises, a Back-Bench Member is excluded.
§ Dr. CunninghamFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that these are difficult decisions for you to have to take, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has an important point. It must surely be for Opposition Front Benchers to decide, in the light of answers and circumstances, who may want to seek to catch your eye—[Interruption.] Shut up, you fool.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that that was not directed at me.
§ Dr. CunninghamNo, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "Shut up, you hon. Gentleman."
Perhaps the best way to resolve these matters would be for us to discuss them with you in private.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a very good suggestion.