HL Deb 11 June 1969 vol 302 cc661-9

3.50 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, with permission I should like now to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, which is published to-day. In addition to the three volumes of the full Report, the Commission have written a shorter version, and all these have been laid before the House. My Lords, I regret to say that the demand for copies of this Report has born so great that, although an extra number was ordered by the Printed Paper Office, we have already run out of stock; but with the ending of the strike in the warehouse, I hope that position will soon be remedied.

My Lords, this is the Statement:

"It is a great achievement to have dealt so thoroughly with so important and complex a subject and to have made such comprehensive recommendations in the short space of three years. We owe a great debt to Lord Redcliffe-Maud and his colleagues.

"The main structure of English local government has remained virtually unchanged since the Acts of 1888 and 1894, which created the present system of county councils, county boroughs and county district councils.

"The dominating theme of the Report is a radical redrawing of local authority boundaries, not merely to reduce the numbers but, even more important, to end the division between town and country and recognise the requirements of planning and communications in the modern age. The Report proposes a completely new administrative map of England outside Greater London, divided into 61 new local government areas. In 58 of them a single authority would be responsible for all services. In the 3 metropolitan areas round Binning barn, Liverpool and Manchester, however, responsibility for services would be divided in each case between a metropolitan authority (whose key functions would be planning, transportation and major development, together with police and other services requiring authorities of this size) and a number of metropolitan district councils (whose key functions would be education, housing and the local authority personal social services).

"The significance of these proposals can be measured by the fact that 81 main authorities would assume the functions of 124 county and county borough councils and over 1,000 county district councils in England outside Greater London.

"These new main authorities (as well as those in Greater London) would appoint representatives to sit on eight Provincial Councils, whose primary task would be to draw up the provincial strategy and planning framework which would become binding on the main authorities. In the Royal Commission's view areas as big as provinces would not be appropriate for the operation of local government services. They suggest that it must be left to the Commission on the Constitution to consider whether the Provincial Councils should assume functions now discharged by central Government.

"Below the main authorities there would be local councils. These councils would represent local opinion and wishes, they would be consulted on matters of special interest to their inhabitants and they would have the power to do a number of things best done locally.

"Three Commissioners have reservations about the pattern of authorities in certain areas; two would prefer to see rather more main authorities and one would prefer rather fewer. A fourth Commissioner, Mr. Senior, while agreeing with the principle of new local authority areas embracing both town and country, differs substantially from his colleagues on the implementation of this concept, and has put forward alternative proposals.

"I can say at once that the Government accept in principle the main recommendations of the Report which state that a major rationalisation of local government is called for, that there should be a very marked reduction in the number of units with executive responsibilty and that the anachronistic division between town and country should be ended. A new structure is needed which will permit services to be provided more efficiently than is possible at present and which will at the same time create a more effective system of local democracy. A reorganisation which achieved these aims would open the way for more devolution in decision-making on issues which at present fall within the decision of central government.

"It is the Government's aim to reach decisions on these main structural reforms as soon as possible, and they will therefore enter into consultations on the basis of the Commission's proposals. In so doing, we shall wish to have regard to the separate proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales and the forthcoming Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland.

"The House will have noted the Commission's recommendations on Provincial Councils. The Government will be reviewing the future of economic planning in the regions, including the future of the Regional Economic Planning Councils, in the light both of the Commission's recommendations and of the valuable work done by the present Councils.

"The process of consultation will naturally take some time. We intend it to be thorough. Subject to this we intend to press ahead quickly, with a view to bringing a Bill before Parliament as soon as possible. It is important that the period of uncertainty should be kept to the minimum.

"The legislation will of course contain provisions to safeguard the interests of local authority staff and there will need to be full consultation with the various staff associations in due course.

"As the recommendations of the Report have major implications for a number of Departments concerned with local government I have asked my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio"— that is, of course, Mr. Thomson—

"to accept responsibility for coordinating the Government's consideration of the Report and of the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government in Scotland when that is received. The local authority consultations on the Redcliffe-Maud Report will of course be carried out by my right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government with the co-operation of other Ministers when matters affecting their Departments are at issue.

"Sir, the Commission have put forward proposals for the most far reaching reorganisation of local government the country has ever seen. The legislation towards the end of the 19th century which created new county boroughs and urban and rural districts was in many ways a rationalisation and extension of what existed already. The earlier development of local government, right back to the middle ages, was gradual and piecemeal. In the last generation we have tried to bring the structure up to date by limited modifications. Radical and widespread changes are overdue. The Commission's Report, I believe the House will agree, faces up to this challenge and in its turn presents the House, the Government and the country with an opportunity and a challenge, which we for our part intend to accept."

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble Lord for repeating this important Statement, and I should like to echo his words and express our gratitude to the members of the Royal Commission—including, if my memory serves me aright, two distinguished Members of your Lordships' House—for managing to get through this vast job as quickly as they have done. Even if the Government's printing arrangements were even better than they are, I should not yet have had time to read and digest the four volumes of this Report, and I should like to reserve judgment on it until I have had time to do so. Nevertheless, I should like to make one general reflection.

In his admirable—and admirably brief—speech just now the noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred, I think, to the need for the redemption of our political system as such. If our political system needs some redemption, as I believe it does, nothing will do more to reinforce the whole democratic process in this country, in my view, than the restoration of real vitality to our local institutions; and I hope that this Report, and the action which will flow from it, point that way.

I should like also, if I may, to permit myself one particular reflection. I note that the Government have accepted in principle the main recommendations of this Report. I assume that that includes the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission for the new local government structure in the great conurbations of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. Those recommendations, as I understand it, are broadly similar to the system now in force in Greater London. They are similar to the proposals which were brought forward by a Conservative Government some years ago and resisted, to my memory, in this House day and night by the Opposition of the day. I should like to congratulate the Government on their conversion.

Two short questions. The Statement refers to 61 new local government areas. That, plus Greater London, makes 62. It also refers to 81 main authorities. I wonder where the missing 19 authorities are. Are they the proposed metropolitan district councils? If so, where do the London boroughs come in? Secondly, the Statement refers to the forthcoming Report on Local Government in Scotland. May I ask when the Government expect to receive that Report? Finally, the noble Lord said that the Government intend to press ahead quickly with a view to bringing a Bill before Parliament as soon as possible on this Report. Of course I endorse the need for speed. I would only ask that the Government do their homework properly; it may be of interest to a successor Government that they should do so.

LORD WADE

My Lords, may I join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. The Commission have certainly had a very formidable task; but at first sight it would seem to me that the analysis is rather better than some of the solutions proposed. Am I right in understanding that the proposed Provincial Councils will contain no directly elected members? If that is so, surely there will be a sense of remoteness from the electors; which is the very opposite of the aims set out in the analysis. Following that, may I ask whether the statement that Her Majesty's Government accept the main recommendations means that they accept the principle of non-elected Provincial Councils?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in managing to intervene in the debate on the quality of life. I listened with interest to his points. I remember those long nights on the London Government Bill, and so do some of my colleagues who fought manfully. I will make no further comment on that aspect. As to the date of introduction of legislation on this Report, I am glad that the noble Earl agrees that it is essential that we should see it as soon as possible. I want to emphasise that it is profoundly important that the consultations will be thorough. As for his other observations, I can only say that, obviously, "hope springs eternal" in his breast on these matters.

As regards the numbers of local authorities, construing my Statement—as he has done—the 61 new local government areas exclude Greater London, and in 58 of those areas there will be a single authority. Three out of the 61 will have these additional metropolitan district councils. This brings the total up to the higher figure I mentioned, of 81 outside Greater London. I hope that I am correct on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, regretted that there was no provision in the main Report for local elections for the Provincial Councils. I should have said that the Redcliffe-Maud Report was entirely correct in this respect in regarding this as a matter to be considered in a much wider context; namely, the considerations which it has been suggested be left to the Commission on the Constitution. Of course, Her Majesty's Government have yet to give detailed consideration to these; but I should have thought that this was an entirely appropriate interpretation by the Redcliffe-Maud Commission of their responsibilities. However, I do not think we can debate this further this afternoon. There will be opportunities for further debate. I should like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in paying tribute to our colleagues who, as always, have rendered notable service on a Royal Commission.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I do not wish to intrude further into the debate on the quality of life; but there was one question that I asked the noble Lord that he has not answered. It was when we may expect to receive the Report on local government in Scotland.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am sorry, my Lords. We expect to receive the Report later this summer. I can assure the noble Earl there is no hold-up on this matter. It is just that these things take a little time. It is expected later this summer.

LORD LEATHERLAND

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for this Statement, may I ask whether he realises that this Report will be very controversial indeed in local government circles? Secondly, can he tell us when the Government will take some specific steps to inquire into the possibility of revising the local government financial system, which should march in harmony with these proposals? Thirdly, can he tell us how it came about that there were so many leakages in the Press about the activities of this Royal Commission? Were they leakages prompted by the Commission as a whole in the way of trial balloons, or were they private and personal leakages by individual members of the Commission? Furthermore, can he tell us something more about the consultative local councils which will take the place of our existing local councils and which are to have practically no power and practically no money and the members of which are to be nothing more than a gang of rampaging eunuchs? Finally, will he accept the thanks of everybody in local government for his assurance that the staff will be properly looked after?

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I do not wish to follow the noble Lord in some of the more extravagant questions that he asked, but there is one point on local government finance that I should like to raise. When the noble Lord says that the Government accept the principle of this Report, do they also accept the principle of delegation of financial control, which I do not believe is actually covered by this Report but which is vital in any real delegation of power?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I shall try to deal with these questions. I am not sure if my noble friend asked me whether this Report would be controversial or whether he told me it would be controversial; but in either case I would agree. I do not think it would be profitable for me to go any further into these points now. Clearly, if the House wishes and if we can find time at some stage, this is a matter of such tremendous importance that it will be debated. This is going to be a difficult set of proposals. All reforms of this kind arouse great anxieties and in some cases hostility. My noble friend asked me about leakages. I really have nothing to say. So far as I know, all the usual security arrangements were made with what I can only say were the rather usual results that follow on these occasions; but I cannot say more than that to my noble friend.

On the subject of local government finance, I would point out that the Royal Commission did not attempt—and this I acknowledge is very important—a thorough examination. In their Report they argue that there is a need for further sources of revenue if local authorities are going to achieve a greater measure of independence from central Government. They recommend that a separate study of local government should be undertaken so that appropriate changes could be made as part of the reorganisation. This is a very complex and difficult area and one to which the Government will have to give attention. Finally, on the subject of the very local councils which my noble friend Lord Leatherland described in graphic, and perhaps not entirely accurate, terms, I can only say that this particular matter is also under consideration.