HC Deb 26 May 1994 vol 244 cc491-8 2.30 pm
Mr. James Cran (Beverley)

It gives me a little satisfaction that I may be the Back Bencher who gets in the last word before we rise for the recess, given the amount of hot air generated this morning. I am bound to say that the last debate was riot hot air. It also gives me some satisfaction that I voted for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on Second Reading. I am even more satisfied that the Government intend to make their own proposals.

The issue that I wish to raise is a national issue that affects my constituents. It is local government reform on Humberside. My constituents and I are worried about the issue and the amount of opposition to local government reform which is clearly developing in some quarters. That opposition does not form the majority of opinion, but vocal objection is beginning to develop against reform. I see it in terms of press speculation, propaganda from local authority associations, or at least some of them, arid the attempts to seek judicial review by some who wish to see the status quo maintained.

The question that occurs to my constituents and to me is how that opposition will affect Humberside, particularly the north bank of the Humber, where my constituency happens to be. In this short debate, I simply want to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that we in north Humberside are enthusiastic about reform of the status quo. In other words, we wish to see an end of Humberside county council. Coincidentally, I received a letter from one of my councillors, Mrs. Betty Eaton, who wrote, unbeknown to me, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday asking again that he get on with the reform of local government in Humberside. That is legitimate because it is against the background of a long campaign in my constituency and area to re-establish the ridings of Yorkshire—for our area, the east riding. That obviously involves the abolition of Humberside county council.

I am sorry to say that Humberside county council was imposed on us by a Conservative Government back in the early 1970s. That was a considerable mistake. That is evidenced, if by nothing else, by the fact that almost the day after the decision was announced, a campaign began to have Humberside abolished. That was not a very good start. The result is that in 20 years or so no loyalty or, to be fair, little loyalty has built up between the electorate and Humberside county council.

Few of my constituents are able to identify with Humberside county council. They seem to think that the borough of Beverley delivers all the services. That is evidenced by the letters. It suggests that the borough of Beverley, to take that example, has achieved a bond between it and its people whereas Humberside county council has not. There were those who believed back in 1987—I was one of them—that a change in the name of the county council was all that was needed to save it. We believed that all that was needed was to change the name from Humberside county council to another name such as East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire county council. That might, at the time, have satisfied those who wanted north of the Humber to return to the ridings, but I do not believe that such a change would satisfy public opinion now, at least in my constituency.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me during his debate. He has made the case fairly on behalf of his constituents, but there is a feeling among a large number of people in the county that many high quality services, such as the hearing impaired service which has been very successful, are under threat from such changes. Many people have changed their opinion again in the course of the debate as they have looked at the issues. They are now beginning to question whether reorganisation is worth the cost, inconvenience and threat to high quality services. I question whether it is worth going through the change all over again after the disruptive change of 1974, which the hon. Gentleman rightly described.

Mr. Cran

The hon. Gentleman has his own view, but his fears are not reflected in the views of my constituents who write to me on the subject. All psephological evidence on the subject shows that what I have been saying to the House and my hon. Friend the Minister is true, and that the bond of loyalty between the people of Humberside and the county council simply does not exist. That is why the county council is fighting a vigorous—I do not think that it will be effective—rearguard action, the latest part of which is the attempt at a judicial review.

I understand that leave to bring in a judicial review has been refused and an appeal is pending—perhaps the Minister can confirm that. The mere fact that a judicial review is being sought does not reflect popular public opinion in my constituency or, I would venture to say, the whole of the north bank of the Humber. Therefore, if I get nothing more out of my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon, my constituents and I would like him at least to restate the Government's commitment to reform on the north bank of the Humber.

Before the Local Government Commission put forward its proposals I was in favour of single-tier, all-purpose local government, based on the district, as that was what all my experience told me would be best. It would be small enough to attract the sort of loyalty that a local authority requires to get consent. However, the commission did not come up with that, but with what will be, in effect, an East Yorkshire county council. As a result, there has been a bit of difficulty—I put it no higher than that—with some of the districts in considering that proposal, but there has been no profound objection.

I am sure that the Minister already knows that the districts are unofficially beginning to work together to consider the practicalities of how they should be organised when the change is implemented. Therefore, I underline the fact that I have no doubt that the districts, and all of us who will be affected by the change when it comes—I hope that it does—will make the recommendations work. That should give the Minister some satisfaction when the proposals are brought forward after any judicial review, if it takes place—I do not expect that it will. I am not here to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get the Secretary of State to give us the decision, which will come in the fullness of time. All that I want the Minister to say is that reform is on its way, irrespective of what may be happening in other parts of the country.

Why am I emphasising this issue? I could be doing all sorts of things. I could be on my way to my constituency to help win Humberside for the Conservatives in the European election, which is what I expect to happen. I am asking these questions because one hears rumours—admittedly mainly in the press—that the Government are thinking again about the pace of reform. I have given them no credence, but I am providing the Minister with the opportunity to give no credence to the rumour that Government zeal for reform is waning, that Ministers are not as keen as they were about the reforms that I am talking about and- that the status quo would give them fewer problems.

I hope that that is not the prevailing Government view. Judging from my hon. Friend's reaction to one or two of my remarks, I think that I now know what his and the Government's views are. If it were any different, my constituents would feel let down. They rightly feel that they have been promised reform and that is what they want.

To use a cricketing metaphor, if the Government want some runs on the board, we can provide them in Humberside. Reform does not run counter to the Government's philosophy over the local government review. As I recall it, that philosophy was that there should be no blanket solutions or iron rigidity and that what is agreed for the south-west of England should not be forced on us in Humberside. We need flexible solutions. If there is to be no reform in the south-west, it should not mean no reform in my constituency.

I need clarification from the Minister this afternoon so that he can reassure me and my constituents. He could best do so in the following way. First, he could make a clear statement that local government reform will come about in Humberside. He and I both know that there is the complication posed by the judicial review. If he cannot answer this now, perhaps he will do so in a letter, but if the review succeeds by some mischance—I do not think that it will—what will be the Government's strategy for my constituency?

Secondly, will my hon. Friend say something about the timetable and reconfirm what we all understand to be the case—that in May 1995 we expect shadow elections for the new authority, whatever it is to be, which would lead to the starting date for the new council or councils in April 1996? I want to know that we are going to achieve that target, if he thinks that it is the correct one. Or does he anticipate any slippage, perhaps not due to the judicial review, but to any other consideration that none of us knows about?

Finally, will the Government introduce separate parliamentary orders? He may not have the information, but perhaps he can write to me. I am aware of the written answer, which stated: we shall decide on handling at the time, taking into account the pressure of parliamentary business."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 444.] What would be the effect if a contentious reorganisation —I guess that there is none—were coupled with a non-contentious change, which is what I expect in the case of Humberside?

Could my hon. Friend also tell me a little about the timetable? I note that the implementing order for Cleveland is likely to be laid in June and made in July —at least, that was the position as I understood it at the last time of looking. What is the position for Humberside?

That is all I want to say. I merely thank my hon. Friend the Minister and everybody else for listening to me—all two of them plus the Minister on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind the fact that we are enthusiastic about his proposals and we want him to get on with them without any delay.

2.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) for giving me the opportunity to give a further report to the House on our progress in undertaking the review of the structure of local government in England and for providing me with the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we are on timetable. The review is on track.

Naturally, my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to make clear his views about the review in relation to Humberside. I know that he understands that it is not possible today to provide him with a definitive answer to his questions about the future structure of local government in Humberside. We are giving careful consideration to the Local Government Commission's recommendations for the review area, which includes Humberside, and also two other large county areas, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

As my hon. Friend said, the commission recommended that the county of Humberside and the county council should be abolished and replaced with four unitary authorities. It is clear that there is widespread support for that recommendation throughout the Humberside area. The recommendation does not stand alone. The commission has provided us with a complex series of recommendations covering the future of all three of those counties and the 23 district councils within their areas. As my hon. Friend would expect, the interrelationship between the recommendations needs to be carefully considered. That notwithstanding, I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be reassured to know that I do not expect that it will be too long before we can announce our decisions on Humberside.

Given that I cannot say a great deal about the specific detail on Humberside, it will, I hope, be helpful to the House if I speak briefly about the commission's progress on the review generally, and helpful if I restated the principles that lie behind our proposals for the reorganisation of local government. I emphasise first that we are not seeking to impose from the centre a blueprint on local government. Through the review process, we are seeking to provide local government and local people within each review area with an opportunity to consider the best means of delivering effective and convenient local government, which at the same time recognises an individual community's particular identity and needs.

We believe that there is a strong case to be made for unitary authorities. In a unitary authority, the public knows who is responsible for the delivery of local services. That clarity of responsibility for provision enhances accountability. People need to know who is responsible for what and that makes the ballot more effective when services are delivered well or, indeed, if they are delivered badly. The voters' message will be clearer if there is no confusion as to who in local government is responsible. Also unitary authorities can accommodate and represent strong community identities. If people identify with their council, they will be more interested in what their council is doing.

There can also be substantial savings in costs when only one authority is responsible for providing a complete range of services, because of the lack of duplication and the consequent reduction in bureaucracy. That can also result in the improvement of those services. If all services are under one roof there is tremendous scope for co-orclinating them from a consumer standpoint. It will be possible to bring together housing and social service issues, so that the person who has needs that cross those two responsitbilities is not shunted from one set of officials to another or from one office to another.

One can co-ordinate development control and transport issues, which will be much better from the citizen's point of view.

Mr. Morley

I thank the Minister for giving way. I wish to raise just two quick points. First, does the Minister accept that there is a great deal of concern in Humberside and among my constituents about issues that are not resolved, such as specialist education services and specialist social services, which will be difficult for unitary authorities to maintain? I know that joint arrangements have been mentioned, but in a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Planning all that was said was that he hoped that local authorities would get together on a voluntary basis and provide those services.

That is not much of an assurance to people who are concerned about a threat to the high quality services that are provided by Humberside and supported by a great many people. Even though there is a difference of opinion, I hope that the Minister will seriously take into account the representations of those who are opposed to the changes.

Mr. Baldry

Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns, I find them strange. Many of his colleagues who represent constituencies with unitary authority areas do not experience problems of coordination on specialist education or whatever. It is therefore surprising that the hon. Gentleman raises that as a point of concern.

Unitary authorities can enhance accountability and provide a desirable balance between efficiency and access. I thought that we had achieved a strong measure of cross-party support for that approach. That was evident in the recent debate on the order establishing a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight—the first order under reorganisation to come before the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who speaks for the Labour party on local government matters, said: I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition firmly support the principle of the establishment of unitary authorities in England. We have not been converted recently to that: we have believed in it for a long time, and even before the 1974 reorganisation of local government. We support the principle because we believe that boundaries that can be established on a unitary basis in many instances better reflect the communities that the local authorities based in those boundaries seek to represent. There is a sense of identity that is sometimes missing from the structure of local government in some parts of the country. The Opposition have also supported the principle of unitary authorities because an effective and efficient unitary authority can avoid duplication—of which, as many hon. Members know, there are many instances in local government. On planning, for example, district and county councils have to liaise and there is sometimes a certain amount of difficulty in understanding who has responsibility for what. On recreation and the link with school sports, there can often be different responsibilities for providing similar facilities… One strong argument in favour of unitary authorities is that the public know who is responsible for issues affecting them and administered by local government. I have always found that helpful in my own local authority. The public know that if the matter is one dealt with by local government…they do not have to determine whether it is a district or county council issue. Those arguments have long been held by the Opposition in supporting unitary councils."—[Official Report, 18 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 690.] There is clearly broad cross-party support for what we are seeking to achieve.

I shall repeat something I have said often before. We are determined that transitional costs will not fall to the council tax payer. We expect' local government reorganisation to be worth while and cost-effective over time. We expect substantial and continuing savings in the longer term to follow the commission's reviews. Estimates for the costs and savings for the changes agreed so far—Cleveland and the Isle of Wight—look good. The 1994–95 council taxes in both areas include nothing for transitional costs. They do not think that they will incur transitional costs. However, there will need to be some investment to secure savings in the future. For example, in Cleveland the authorities estimate that the £2 million they may be required to spend on redundancies will secure savings of £1.5 million a year thereafter, in each and every year.

We accept that the review may not always lead to a unitary authority solution—it may well be that in certain circumstances arguments in favour of the status quo will prevail and the two-tier system will be retained. It is, of course, in the first instance for the commission to recommend what the future structure of local government in any area under review should be.

I come now to the progress that the commission has made to date. We have received its final recommendations on 10 review areas. We have accepted, and this House and another place have passed, orders implementing the commission's recommendations for the Isle of Wight—one unitary. We have also accepted its recommendations for Cleveland—four unitaries. However, we have found it necessary to refer back to the commission for further consideration its recommendations for Gloucestershire,Derbyshire and Durham. As I have said, we shall be announcing our decisions on the commission's outstanding recommendations—including those for Humberside—in due course.

I am sure that the House will agree that it is in everyone's interest for uncertainty about the review to last for as short a time as possible. Inevitably, when we announced the acceleration of the commission's review timetable last autumn, scepticism was expressed in some quarters about whether the revised targets could be met. I am pleased to be able to confirm that all the local authorities in the first phase had made their initial representations by the due date—8 April—and that the commission is now preparing its draft reports on the areas involved. I am confident that reports on most areas will be published by early June.

Success in meeting the timetable has depended to a great extent on the willingness of local authorities to co-operate with each other in designing future structural arrangements that meet local needs. I would expect the commission to reflect that local consensus in its recommendations to us. In areas where consensus has not been achieved, I very much hope that the review process will provide an impetus for authorities to get together: only if local authorities and local people get together can we be confident that local wishes are being addressed and will be met.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley explained that his constituents, who have welcomed the proposals for the abolition of Humberside county council, feared that the review of the structure of local government might in some way be abandoned, or that its momentum had somehow faltered. Let me make it clear that the review of the structure of local government in England is on time and on track, and we are determined for it to stay on time and on track. We are determined to complete the task fully, thoroughly and expeditiously, to the benefit of all concerned. If we had intended to bale out of the review, the time to do so would have been about a year ago. It would not have been now—and it certainly will not be now, or at any time in the future.

As I have explained, the review is on course, the commission is on schedule and the timetable is being adhered to. The fact that a number of councils have chosen to seek judicial review of the commission's recommendations has meant that the short-term timetable has needed to be amended—nothing more. Ultimately, what matters is our intention that in May 1997 the last of the new authorities will assume their full responsibilities, and we are still well on target to reach that date.

My hon. Friend asked what we would do if the court reached a certain decision. We can only trust in the court's good judgment; certainly, it is impossible to anticipate its decision. We are confident, however, that all the new authorities will be able to assume their full responsibilities by May 1997, and, as I have said, we are well on target and determined to meet that deadline.

This is the last debate before the Whitsun recess. Like my hon. Friend, I suspect that it is less a recess than an adjournment to enable us all to help campaign in the European elections. Those elections will be as important to the people of Humberside in the immediate future as the reorganisation of local government.

The elections on 9 June will present the people of Humberside, and those elsewhere, with a straightforward choice between two types of Europe. There is the Conservative choice of a thriving, open, deregulated and decentralised Europe where opportunities are grasped, trade is encouraged and jobs are created—a Europe where nation states work more effectively together to solve all the problems that they share, but where individual nation states retain responsibility for most areas of policy.

Then there is the Lib-Lab vision of Europe, which is very different. Both parties are signed up to more controls, more regulations and new costs and burdens for employers. Just when Britain is showing the way to economic recovery and shrinking dole queues, Labour and the Liberals are proposing a charter for job destruction on Humberside and elsewhere. Instead of making Europe less remote and more accountable to the citizens of Humberside and elsewhere, they are proposing to centralise decision making in Brussels by signing away Britain's national veto.

I suspect that that is not what people in Humberside want, or what the British people want. We shall make every effort, therefore, to spell out the facts between now and 9 June. The British people want a very different sort of Europe. They want a European Parliament that uses its powers to deliver benefits to ordinary people—such benefits as a real single market, a crackdown on European Community fraud and better control of the Brussels Commission. It means a strong Britain in a strong Europe: That is the choice on 9 June; for Britain's sake and for Europe's sake, we are determined to make it a Conservative choice

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock till Tuesday 14th June, pursuant to the Resolution [19 May].