Southend Unitary Authority (Hansard, 28 November 1997)

§ Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to raise the important issue of Southend acquiring unitary status in April next year.

For a number of years, I was privileged to talk about another constituency, and, as far as I was concerned, that constituency was the finest new town in the country. Little did I know that it would later be my good fortune to represent the town that I believe, by the time of the millennium, will be the finest seaside resort in the country. I welcome the support of several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who is a constituent. I also welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who used to be a county councillor in Southend.

Southend has an image that is not justified. It is a magnificent seaside resort that, for whatever reason, has been unfairly maligned by what I would describe as the chattering classes. It has the unique facility of the longest pier in the world—1.5 miles. Although, some years ago, a ship went into the end of the pier and it suffered a couple of fires, I am delighted to tell the House that, thanks to the enterprise of local businesses, it has now been restored to its former splendour, and is a great attraction for day trippers.

Southend also enjoys the finest education system in the country. I do not wish to do battle with the Minister for London and Construction, who will reply to the debate this afternoon, but I—as a Conservative—believe in choice, and Southend certainly provides choice. It has state schools, private schools, grant-maintained schools and Church schools, which are all of great benefit to local residents.

Southend is also blessed with the most picturesque parks anywhere in the country. I pay tribute to the parks department of Southend council for the magnificent way that it maintains the local planted areas. They are a great credit to the department, considering how many day trippers visit. Although some criticism has been made of local communications, we enjoy a local airport, we are very near to the M25, and we also—thank goodness, now that we have privatised the Fenchurch Street line—have an improving railway service. I was proud to travel on the new rolling stock this morning.

Southend is the largest town in Essex, and it is a tragedy that Essex county council has never recognised that fact in the grant that it has allocated to the services provided in Southend. We have a population of 167,000 people and a wide economic base, but, sadly, Southend suffers the highest level of unemployment in Essex—far higher than the constituency that I used to represent. In the wards of Belfairs, Chalkwell, Leigh, Milton, St. Lukes, Thorpe and Victoria, unemployment rates for young people between 17 and 24 are as high as 25 per cent.

Southend obtained the borough charter in 1892, and Southend-on-Sea achieved its present size in 1933. We enjoyed the present borough status from 1914 to 1974, although I am not fully aware of what went on 1275 between the outgoing Conservative Government and the incoming Labour Government that meant that Southend lost borough status. My wife is a Southend girl, and her family were born and educated there. Unlike her, I am new to such matters, but I understand from many local residents that they were not entirely pleased about losing Southend's borough status. In 1992, the borough centenary celebrations took place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) wished to be present to contribute to this short debate, but—although he stayed for the vote on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—he has a surgery at 4.30 and it was impossible for him to stay. He certainly supports my brief remarks. In the last Parliament, he was a great supporter of Southend becoming a unitary authority, as was Lord Kelvedon, who held a celebration last night in the Arlington rooms because he served the constituency that I now represent for four decades. Therefore, I can take no credit for Southend becoming a unitary authority in April. However, I shall tell the Minister my feelings about unitary status for Southend.

I was a councillor for four years, many years ago, in Redbridge, and Southend will have exactly the same responsibilities as those of Redbridge. When I represented my former constituency—I hope that the hon. Member for Braintree will not take offence at this—I found that there was continuing confusion among constituents about the responsibilities of Essex county council. I have found similar confusion among my present constituents.

Many representatives in Southend feel that they have been short-changed by Essex county council over many years. Their impression is that overall resources have been directed to the north of the county rather than the south. They believe that we in the south have suffered especially in terms of education, social services and investment in the highways.

Inasmuch as Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors would welcome what will happen next April, I wish to pay tribute to the leader of the Conservative group, Councillor Charles Latham and his deputy, Councillor Howard Brigg, who did much of the work, together with other parties, to try to make what will happen in April a success. I pay tribute to one retiring Conservative county councillor, Lew Trevelyan, who has served his area so well. I pay tribute also to County Councillor Paul White.

Without wishing to provoke the Minister, I should put on record at the outset the political complexion of Southend and of Essex county council. An annual report dropped through my door this morning, which states that there was no change following the local elections on 1 May. That is not my understanding of the situation. Sadly, from my point of view, the Conservative party did not do terribly well in the general election. However, as for Essex county council and Southend borough council, we Conservatives did extremely well, making gains from both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

Essex county council is controlled by the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties together, but, because Thurrock and Southend are to go unitary in April, the county council will become Conservative again without an election.

1276 Southend borough council is another matter. There are 18 Conservative councillors, 14 Liberal Democrat councillors and 7 Labour councillors. The Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors have some agreement on how they should run the authority, but outside the elected representatives—in other words, the activists in Southend—there seems to be much unhappiness that the Labour party is currently supporting the Liberal Democrat party. Perhaps we shall hear the likely outcome of that in due course.

I have received representations from Leigh parish council, a very new council. The council feels that it was rather unfortunate that Southend as a whole was not parished last year. Leigh is the one and only parish council, but I am proud to have it in my constituency, with its excellent chairman, Councillor Johnson and the deputy chairman, Councillor Dolby.

The council wishes me to say that it feels that unitary status—I know that the Minister cannot say anything until a statement is made next week—is not being accompanied by the money that is needed to set up and run a unitary authority. That point comes from Conservatives.

The council is especially concerned about education and social services. It feels that the view of the public will be affected by first impressions. In other words, it wants Southend to get off to a good start next April. It feels that, if there is not sufficient money to do the job properly, an unfair first impression will be created, which will cause many problems for the administration. It makes a good point about the size of the local authority. All parties have complained about the fact that, whereas at the moment there are 39 Southend borough councillors and 11 county councillors, after next April there will be just the 39 borough councillors.

The previous Conservative Government listened to Labour-controlled Thurrock council and enhanced the number of local councillors, but they did not listen to Southend borough council. I make that point having had no hand in that decision.

When Michael Portillo, the former Member for Enfield, Southgate, was the Minister responsible for local government and I was privileged to be his parliamentary private secretary, we held wide consultations about the future of local government. I am concerned about what has happened to local government. I have never been in favour of officer-led authorities: I believe that elected representatives should run local authorities.

If all parties were honest, they would say that it is difficult to get people—I have to be careful how I put this—who have the widespread experience to make the best councillors. I am not denigrating the councillors who currently give up their valuable time, but being the leader of a council is a full-time job, as is being the chairman of housing, of education or of social services, and I believe that those people should be paid a salary. Unless they are, we will not attract the best councillors, and we will end up with officer-led authorities.

As I am pinching more time than perhaps I should, I do not expect the Minister to respond to many of the points that I have made, but perhaps he will write to me later. I ask him to consider carefully the representations that have been made about the size of the authority.

Leigh parish council is concerned about the cockle industry, which is a major potential problem for the town and the borough. It is based in Leigh and is internationally 1277 renowned. It is under severe pressure on the number of working days and the areas that can be fished. The Minister with responsibility for such matters has been very courteous, and has recently met a delegation. We are concerned about the new, tighter restrictions that will be placed on yields as from 1 January 1998. The town council in Southend and the Government should work together, so that we do not lose the traditional industry that is very important to a number of well-known families in the town.

Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was the Minister responsible for fishing, he came to Leigh, and we had a useful meeting in the town. He listened to the pleas of the industry, which hoped that moneys would become available through the European Community to dredge the creek, which is important for the viability of the local industry.

Leigh parish council also makes points about transport, which is a controversial area. I was involved in transport issues in previous Parliaments, and the usual attitude was "not in my backyard". Everyone wanted more cars, but they did not want their areas to be spoiled by new roads. Everyone wanted more aeroplanes, but they did not want the airways to affect their area. Everyone wanted more trains, but we can all remember the big row in Kent when we wanted to build the channel tunnel.

We have a serious problem in Southend. Any fair-minded person must accept that Essex county council has not treated us well, and has not invested in our roads. I pay tribute to the former chief executive in Southend, Douglas Moulsham. The new chief executive, George Krawiec, is very concerned, and has written to the Minister about this matter. He believes that a larger unitary authority should have been created to include Rochford and Castle Point. That is not my point of view, and it was not possible for various reasons. We will have to work with their highways authority, and he believes that that may cause grave problems. Leigh parish council is very concerned about the A130. I know that Friends of the Earth takes a different view, but local businesses are extremely worried about transport problems.

In the last Parliament, I raised the issue of Leigh fire station several times. It is a local fire station that has been there for 100 years. We have had big demonstrations about it—I was assaulted on one of the so-called peaceful marches—and Essex county council allowed a stay of one year. Given the new unitary arrangements, I am very worried about the future funding of that fire station.

I give the House due notice: if I, for one—and I know that I speak for other hon. Members—get wind of any future threat to Leigh fire station, I will keep returning to the subject as a matter of urgency, until the House may tire of it. We need the fire station. It has given comfort to a huge number of residents for many years, and we will not be fobbed off with its being turned into a training centre.

Let me now deal with the scandal involving education. It sickens me to listen to members of the Liberal Democrat party, who have campaigned in election after election on the basis that they will—as if one could— earmark a penny to be spent on education. We have discovered that schools in Southend have been starved of funds by an underspend of £3.2 million on the standard spending assessment. I have a long list of capital projects from which my constituents could have benefited.

1278 We are finding all that out only now, when the books are being examined and we are moving towards unitary status. An underspend of £3.2 million is not good enough. I know that the Minister will not be able to respond to me in detail, but I ask him to use whatever influence he can use—he probably does not have too much influence with the Liberal Democrat party, but he has influence with the Labour party—to put the matter right.

The Labour party abolished the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes. Labour Members should come to Southend: they would see that we have no room for any children in any of our schools. Every secondary school is full, and every primary school is full. Westborough school, in my constituency, has nearly 800 pupils, and the headmistress has not even got a room. How will the Labour party help us with that problem? We have been starved of £3.2 million, and we want something done about it. The chief executive has described it as—these are not my words—"an absolute disgrace".

I am also extremely worried about social services. My constituency ranks 31st out of 659 in terms of the number of senior citizens, and it contains the highest number of residential and nursing homes. Two weeks ago, 72 beds in Southend hospital were blocked—although, thank goodness, I was told today that the number has fallen to 53. We have a crisis on our hands.

I will not go into the details of the difficulties between the three parties in regard to the funding of private homes; I will simply say that I understand that the Labour party now accepts the facts. In April, Essex county council will no doubt change its policy. It should be realised, however, that everyone's life is of equal importance, regardless of age. My constituents badly need help with social services.

I apologise for taking up so much time. My final point concerns the Palace theatre. We have a magnificent theatre in Southend, West, and I was shocked to discover the unfairness involved in its funding. That is relevant to the fact that the authority is to become unitary.

The Palace theatre receives from the Eastern arts board £45,000. The theatre in Ipswich receives £322,750, the theatre in Colchester £230,000 and the one in Watford £204,500. What makes me even more angry is that Southend is the second biggest contributor of subscriptions to the Eastern arts board. If we consider the plays that these theatres put on and the high unemployment in Southend, that is scandalous. I ask the Minister to have a word with his colleague to find out whether that can be put right.

I welcome Southend acquiring unitary status in April. I know that all political parties are determined to make a success of it, but, unless some hard decisions are taken shortly on funding, the House will tire of me making many points about all the issues that I have raised. As we approach Christmas, I ask the Minister not for charity, but for fairness for Southend.

§ The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his success in the ballot. I am glad of the opportunity to respond—albeit briefly—to his points and to the representations that he and others have made to my Department about the number of councillors for Southend-on-Sea council once it obtains full unitary status in April.

1279 I am a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that Southend-on-Sea does not have sufficient resources to perform its responsibilities as a unitary authority, and allege that it has been short-changed by Essex. The disaggregation of the authorities' budgets to allow for unitary status was carried out with the full involvement of all the Essex authorities, and agreed by all of them.

I have a letter dated 4 September from Mr. Andrews, Southend's borough treasurer, in which he states: There are no areas of disagreement between Southend and Essex County Council". The hon. Gentleman admitted that he was new to Southend, but perhaps he should check his facts with the authority before making allegations in the House.

Many of the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are essentially local matters, and, as such, matters for the authority, but I will endeavour to address some of the key ones concerning education, social services, the fire service and the theatre, before dealing with the substantive issue of the number of councillors needed to enable the authority to discharge its new responsibilities as a unitary authority.

I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman allege that class sizes were too large, and that resources were insufficient for education in Southend. That is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, but the figures available to me show that, in Southend, primary school total capacity is 14,246 and current pupil numbers are 13,570 and expected to increase to only 14,030. That implies continuing spare capacity in Southend primary schools.

I am informed that secondary school total capacity in Southend is 11,781 places. Current pupil numbers are 10,193, and are expected to increase to 10,776. The Southend shadow authority did not bid for additional places in the recent Department for Education and Employment annual capital guideline.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be a shortfall in funding for social services, without referring to the additional £300 million for the national health service that was announced by the Government this autumn. We have made it clear that, where the need is for social care, funds should be transferred to local authorities. It is for health authorities locally to determine, in consultation with social services, the best use of resources between health and social services.

Fire service funding is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and decisions on individual closures are a matter for the local fire authority. The proposed closure will have to be approved by the Home Secretary, and he will approve a closure only if the authority has consulted on it and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that national fire cover standards will be maintained.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Palace theatre. This is a matter for Eastern arts board and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That will need to be taken up with the relevant authorities. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the number of councillors. I have carefully considered the arguments and the letter from the chief executive of 1280 Southend-on-Sea borough council to the Deputy Prime Minister. We will be responding to that letter shortly.

I am not persuaded by the arguments. In measuring the work load of local authorities, it is not the number of councillors that is pertinent but the number of electors each councillor represents. That is certainly the measure that is used by the Local Government Commission for England. The councillor to elector ratio in seven other unitary authorities is higher than that of Southend-on-Sea, and another three have a similar ratio.

One of the seven is Portsmouth, which has the same number of councillors as Southend—39—yet has a larger electorate by some 12,000. Southend does not have the highest ratio by a long way, and it is hard to see why it should take precedence in the programme of work that is currently in hand to look at the electoral arrangements in all authorities. I recognise that that may be disappointing for the hon. Gentleman, so it might help if I say a little about the review process and where we are today.

The Local Government Commission looked at the electoral arrangements in Southend-on-Sea as part of the structure review of all local authorities in England. It recommended unitary status for Southend. After receipt of the final report—which I understand had the support of the local authority, the Conservative party and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who represented the seat for many years, was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and is widely respected—the previous Administration, I am sure, gave proper consideration to all the issues, including the fact that no change in relation to the electoral arrangements was proposed.

Despite the no doubt real, if transitional, pressures caused by the transfer to unitary status, we have no record of any other shire council seeking additional councillors. To our knowledge, no other authority has suggested that it needs more councillors solely because of its new responsibilities as a unitary authority. After all, one of the aims of the structure review, and one of the stated benefits of unitary status, is to reduce bureaucracy and improve the co-ordination and quality of services by streamlining arrangements and cutting out the duplication of effort and the inefficiencies that are sometimes involved in the two-tier process.

Local authorities being reorganised are expected to take the opportunity to improve efficiency and improve the quality and co-ordination of local services, thereby reducing bureaucracy. There should be scope for efficiency savings, although I recognise that much will depend on the approach that is adopted by local authorities and how they rise to the challenge.

It is right, of course, that these matters should not be set in stone. A programme of periodic electoral reviews is undertaken by the Local Government Commission for England, the independent body that is charged with undertaking such reviews. It is interesting to note that the intention of such reviews is to ensure that the ratio of electors to councillors should, as far as possible, be the same in every electoral area—