THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

HC Deb 16 June 1994 vol 244 cc799-804

Mr. Morgan

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 18, leave out Parts I and II' and insert Part I'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments:

No. 11, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'areas' to end of line 23 and insert

'shall be as set out in Part I of Schedule 4 and shall be counties, save that a county may become a county borough under the provisions of section 245A of this Act.'. Government amendments Nos. 41 to 47.

No. 16, in schedule 1, page 52, line 5, leave out 'Part I' and insert 'Parts I and II'.

No. 17, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 19.

Mr. Morgan

I am grateful to have the opportunity to move on to the question of the Government's persistence in their erroneous ways of attempting to divide the new world of unitary local government in Wales into two classes. The Government are, perhaps, wedded to two-tierism. We are a two-tier society. We have a two-tier health service and now we are to have two-tier local government in Wales—on the one hand through an attempt to rationalise Wales by having unitary local government and, on the other, the absurd attempt, which, in spite of all our attempts, so far has been resisted by the Government, to break up local government and make it class conscious almost before it comes into existence under the new unitary scheme.

As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will see, with reference to amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which come at the end of this group of amendments, the schedules on pages 52 to 55 of the Bill lay out the names of the new authorities as though they were two cricket teams to be played against each other—as though they were gentlemen and players or, in some way, a class A and class B of new local authorities.

There is no purpose to that at all. It is purely related to status, not to function. I should have thought that the whole spirit of the Bill would follow the principle that we are trying to persuade those new local authorities to think about their functions as being 100 per cent. of the job in front of them, not their status. To make local authorities status conscious from day one and to discriminate between two groups of local authorities so that they have different status is patently absurd and absolutely not what the Government should be doing. Any casual glance at parts I and II of the schedules makes that quite clear. That is why in amendments Nos. 16 and 17 we abolish the distinction between part I and part II. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which we are initially discussing, are the ways of bringing that into the text of the main part of the Bill.

Government amendments Nos. 41 to 47 are minor technical amendments, relating to the freedom of authorities to drop such words as "county" and "shire" from their titles. We need not spend much time on them; our time should be spent asking the Government yet again to reconsider the grouping of authorities into two classes.

A particularly absurd aspect of the proposals is the fact that, although class A is clearly meant to be more important than class B, authorities can ask to move from class A to class B—in other words, they can ask to downgrade themselves to the second division—but cannot do the reverse. Authorities currently listed in schedule 1 are, in effect, being told, "You are the important ones, but if you decide that you want a mayor"—or, in the case of the cities of Wales, Cardiff and Swansea, a lord mayor; that is their historic right—"you must move into the second division."

That is patently absurd. The fact that authorities should be placed on a pedestal and then asked to lower themselves from the first to the second division if they want the status involved in having a lord mayor beggars belief. It would be much simpler to recognise cities' historic rights—and those of county boroughs, which, being already in the second division, automatically have mayors. The fact that Cardiff and Swansea are being required to ask the Secretary of State's permission to move into part II and, as it were, downgrade themselves because of the discriminatory nature of the legislation makes me wonder what the Government thought that they were doing in dividing the schedule into two parts, listing about 22 areas.

The Government should try to simplify and rationalise the Bill. The Secretary of State should employ the intellectual incisiveness for which he was famed as a university student. He should consider whether the Bill would be neater if it concentrated more on the functions of local government and less on the difference between the first and second divisions.

It would be better to create a single class of unitary authorities. The cities could then have their lord mayors, areas whose historical or geographical orientation makes them counties could have their chairmen and chairwomen, and historic boroughs could have their mayors: no authority would have to jump from one class to another.

It is not necessary to draw up two classes. All that is necessary is a schedule listing all the local authorities in Wales, so that none is distinguished on the basis of status, but the title of each clearly implies whether it is an historic shire, an historic city or an historic borough.

The present "division 1" contains both present cities and present shires; it is not as though different types of authority area are being described. Division 1 contains shires and cities, while division 2 contains boroughs. If a city wants a lord mayor, however, it must jump from the county list to the borough list. That underlines the absurdity of the Government's obsession with creating two classes. They originate from a class-ridden society, and they are now creating another.

The list of local authority titles should be simple and rational. There is absolutely no purpose in dividing the schedule into two parts, comprising two apparently counterposed lists of local authorities which will be set aside from day one as though they differed in status—as opposed to powers. We do not want status-conscious local authorities; we want function-conscious authorities, anxious to do a job and orientated towards providing services for their citizens. The schedule starts the Bill off on the wrong foot, and will have the same effect on local authorities. I hope that the Government will reconsider.

6.45 pm

Mr. Hain

I wish to press the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on a specific issue—the title of the new Neath and Port Talbot unitary authority. That title excludes a significant part of the new authority: upper Lliw, the upper Swansea valley and the lower Amman valley.

Schedule 15 states: The name of a Welsh principal area shall not be changed under this section before 1st October 1996 except with the consent of the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that, having been elected—even with "shadow" status—a new unitary authority decides that, in order better to reflect its composition, it wishes to change its name. I see the Secretary of State nodding appreciatively: that is an unusual experience for me, and it may harm his reputation, but I hope that he will consider this matter sympathetically. Such action would be well received, and would provide certain reassurances. The right hon. Gentleman nods again; this is becoming dangerously repetitive.

As the Minister will appreciate, there is a proud tradition in the upper Swansea valley—which contains such towns as Ystalyfera, Pontardawe and Cwmllynfell —and the lower Amman valley, which contains Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Those towns—and even the little village of Rhiwfawr—do not feel that they can easily be associated with Port Talbot; they have a certain association with Neath because they are in the Neath constituency.

I realise that playing around with names on the Floor of the House of Commons could be seen as a dangerous pursuit for a sitting Member of Parliament; playing around with boundaries is dangerous enough, but playing around with names may be even more hazardous. I do not seek to impose any alternative name on the new authority—that is a matter for the new members—but the Bill contains an unsatisfactory element, in that it excludes a sizeable slice of the new authority which has an important tradition and identity and proud local communities.

Suggestions have been made, and I pass them on without prejudice in any direction. "New Glamorgan" has been suggested; some have even suggested "the Neath Valleys"—a certain territorialism may be involved there. I do not think that Port Talbot would be terribly impressed. There is, however, a serious problem: the title of the new authority must give it an identity that is known to the outside world.

I understand why the Secretary of State may have gone for this option. At least Neath and Port Talbot are two relatively well-known names in Wales—Neath is, anyway —in terms of rugby and politics. That gives the area an identity: investors and visitors know where it is. I can see the logic. A more anodyne name such as "New Glamorgan" might run the contrary risk of making the area relatively anonymous.

I understand the difficulties involved, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give sympathetic consideration to any request not just from the fully constituted operational authority but from the shadow authority to set itself up on an entirely fresh basis, taking into account the important local feelings of pride and identity that exist in the upper Lliw valley. Certainly, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has nodded vigorously at me suggests that he will do so.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

The nomenclature of the areas presents a special problem for my constituency. Although Newport is generally happy with the Bill's provisions, it faces a unique problem: there are Newports in Wales and throughout the world, as a result of which much confusion has arisen. A couple of months ago, I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in which he stated that he would visit an agricultural college in my constituency. I wrote back to say that I would be to happy to meet him and search for it and that, if we could not find it, he could meet the local Child Support Agency action group so that his trip would not be entirely wasted.

Newports are constantly confused. To establish the identity of the area, it should be given another name. For most of this century, the area was called Newport Monmouthshire. Since 1974, it has been known as Newport Gwent, which has become the established name. We are told by the Post Office, however, that once the Bill is enacted, we shall have to start calling it Newport, Newport, to which some objections have been made.

We commonly refer to our neighbour, the city of Cardiff, as "Newport, far west", which might be a suitable title if it is considering changing its name.

The problem, which dates back through the history of Newport, is what to call ourselves. There is only one Casnewydd in Wales: Casnewyyd Ar Wysg is the Welsh version of Newport. The River Usk flows through the town. Usk means water and is found in the word "Eskdale". One popular suggestion is that the town should change its name to Newport on Usk, which has a certain attraction and might be popular.

Our status is not accepted as permanent. Newport has long aspired to becoming a city. Newport County, a football team of great renown, is sadly no longer with us. Perhaps we could call ourselves Newport City and wait for the Queen or whoever is in charge of such matters to vest city status on Newport. The name of Newport presents -special problems which no other areas experience.

Newport has an enormously important and unique history in Wales. Certain parts of it are booming, despite the policies of the Government, in whom we are all beginning to lose faith, especially after the last couple of days. Newport still has a great future and a rugged, robust personality and character. Those matters must be borne in mind.

Mr. Gwilym Jones

Amendments Nos. 41 to 47 respond to an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). After consideration, we have decided that it would be right to give the new councils a degree of flexibility to determine their official title. In addition to the titles of county council and county borough council, the amendment would create a third form of plain council. It does not alter the legal status of the new authorities—they will still be counties or county boroughs—but it will permit an authority to be known simply as a council, as in Monmouthshire council or Pembrokeshire council. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

I noted the concern of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about the title of the authority now designated as Neath and Port Talbot. He will recollect that in Committee we passed an amendment that shortened the period in which the new authorities would require my right hon. Friend's permission to change their title. I assure him that my right hon. Friend remains sympathetic to any application, even while the authority is in shadow form. We are prepared to consider whatever application is made.

I recognise Newport's aspirations to become a city. Speaking as a citizen of the capital city of Wales, I regard that as a fine aspiration. On the basic conundrum about the title of the authority for Newport, I can but leave that with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).

I assure the Opposition that there is no difference between county and county boroughs in terms of status, functions or responsibilities. The two designations were chosen because they are resonant of the traditional pre-1974 structures of local government, when county boroughs were unitary authorities and the administrative counties were responsible for almost all significant functions of local government in non-county borough areas. There is no reason, therefore, to pursue amendments Nos. 10, 11, 16 or 17.

Mr. Morgan

That answer was absurd. There was no difference before 1974. If one had two-tier local government, one had two-tier local government. The boroughs in the old county areas and the counties split functions between them. It is not valid to say that the counties were so predominant in their areas that they were almost all-purpose authorities—they were not. Anyone who was involved in borough government before 1974 knows that the counties and the boroughs split their functions. They were unlike county boroughs of Cardiff, Newport Swansea and Merthyr.

My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made some valid points about the need to recognise the contribution that the upper Swansea valley has made to cultural life in Wales. I have strong family connections with that area, which has produced more Welsh rugby captains per head than any other part of Wales: I list only Claude Davey, R.H. Williams, Clem Thomas, Clive Rowlands and Gareth Edwards. The contribution of that area, therefore, should be recognised. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend and his constituents to work how that should be done. Perhaps a petition could be presented to Her Majesty, provision for which is included in clause 245.

If one comes from Cardiff, the issue involving Newport is a much trickier question. I have suggested that Cardiff may become known as the Latin quarter of Newport, although not in proceedings in the House. Cardiff is losing some of its industry, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, Newport remains very much part of the world of work and industry—not something that I necessarily approve of.

The question of city status for Newport is affected by the problem that I referred to earlier. The schedule has been broken up into parts 1 and II. Inevitably, Newport will read the list. As the biggest and most historic town in division 2, it will naturally ask how it can be promoted to division 1. There is no provision to permit that. Cardiff and Swansea can apply to leave division 1 and go into division 2—they will have to if they are to have lord mayors. How will Newport get from division 2 into division 1? That is a great difficulty.

Newport has a great history, including something of a football history. In Frederick Raphael's "Glittering Prizes" the bright young things at Cambridge were asked whether they would prefer playing football to working for the BBC, Shell or BP. One said that he would have given up all the A-levels in the world to score a hat-trick for Newport County reserves. As Newport had been bottom of the Football League for five years running at the time, that was a mark of how they valued football above academic prestige, despite the glittering prizes of the Oxbridge world.

The problem would be solved by removing the distinction between part I and part II in the schedule. If the Government resist, I hope they will listen to the world of local government and will recognise that status in the new Wales does not count but function does. By the time the Bill goes to the other place, I hope that they will have thought again. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.