§ 3.10 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDroRD)My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have the honour to present to your Lordships the first comprehensive local government legislation for 80 years. Though we flexed our muscles for this task some nine years ago in the reform of the government of Greater London, that was but a little Bill of a mere 90 clauses. We now face 259 clauses. But may I remind those of your Lordships who are daunted and dismayed as they face 259 clauses of a new Bill on July 31, of our three recent debates on Local Government Reform—as recently as February 1970 on the Labour Government's proposals and two in March 1971 on this Government's proposals—and invite your Lordships to draw comfort from the strength and extent of accord then evidenced in the House on this subject.
Neither in those debates nor today does anyone doubt the need for reform. Neither in those debates nor today does anyone dispute the decision to press on with that reform with all despatch—not least for the sake of the staff in local government who, hard-pressed as they may be by these changes, would rather be done with them as soon as may be than face any further uncertainty and delay. Though in those earlier debates there was some discussion about one-tier or two-tier, now that two-tier has been accepted the staunchest advocates of more powers for the districts are to be found among the Party opposite. So, far from being daunted, we can, I think. draw encouragement from the wide measure of support that this Bill already has.
17 But I am also encouraged by the weight of expert opinion that this House will be able to deploy upon the Bill—the Chairman of the Royal Commission, Lord Redcliff-Maud, is with us, and his colleague, the noble Baroness Lady Sharp. What a debt we already owe to them! Also to assist are all the presidents of the local authority associations; ex-presidents and vice-presidents are in good supply, to say nothing of those of your Lordships who are councillors at the present time. We look forward to no less than four maiden speeches in this debate. So I have little doubt that the Government can look forward to very considerable assistance from your Lordships in taking this measure through its due Parliamentary process and in enacting this Bill.
The essential purpose of the Bill is to modernise and strengthen local democratic government while retaining, so far as possible, traditional loyalties and ancient rights. It proposes a rationalised map of the counties which, while keeping as closely as possible to the ancient and traditional boundaries, nevertheless takes account of the present and future distribution of development and the main lines of communication. At district level the number of authorities will be considerably reduced and the average strength and resources of the authorities correspondingly increased. The now artificial and anachronistic distinction between the big towns and their hinterlands is being brought to an end and permanent and independent machinery will be established to keep boundaries regularly under review in the future. The allocation of functions between the counties and the districts is to be adjusted on a more up to date basis, and flexible arrangements written into the Bill to permit authorities to make joint arrangements for the administration of functions in ways that suit the requirements of their areas. The Bill establishes two staff commissions to advise on matters relating to the recruitment of staff and the safeguards needed to protect the interest of local government employees. Finally, the Bill constitutes a substantial measure of consolidation and statute law revision in the field of local government legislation.
Two complementary spheres of administration are being proposed 18 throughout England and Wales: one, the counties—44 in England outside Greater London and eight in Wales—for those functions which can only be exercised effectively over large areas, for example, transport and structure planning, or for large populations of at least 250,000, for example, education and social services. The other sphere is the districts for those functions which can be, and therefore should be, exercised at a local level, notably the main environmental services, and particularly housing.
We have identified six metropolitan counties in England where, because the districts are so populous, it has been thought right for them to exercise a wider range of functions. But we have drawn tight the boundaries of these metropolitan counties, taking the view that issues of planning, overspill, green belt and transport—particularly commuter travel—could not possibly be contained in any conceivable wider boundaries for the metropolitan counties but must rather be dealt with on a regional basis.
The boundaries of the counties of the districts in Wales and in the English metropolitan counties are all defined in the Bill. These are based on extensive consultations with the local authorities themselves throughout the country, reinforced by further discussions on the spot by my fellow Ministers from the Department of the Environment in places where the decisions were particularly difficult. The other English district boundaries have been set out in draft proposals by the Boundary Commission Designate and will in due course come before Parliament for approval after the Bill has been enacted.
The draft proposals by the Boundary Commission for the English districts took full account of local suggestions and have met with a very wide measure of agreement among the existing authorities affected. I think it is important to emphasise this in case the contrary impression is derived from the fact that in some areas the Commission's proposals have been criticised. It would have been astonishing of course if all the suggested new units had commended instant acceptance. The purpose of publishing draft proposals was to identify the areas requiring further attention. The Commission have announced their intention of holding meetings with the local 19 authorities concerned in those areas of special difficulty, with a view to exploring alternative possibilities, and such meetings will probably be held early in September.
Obviously, it would not be right for me to enter into any discussion at this stage concerning the proposals which the Commission have published, except to stress yet again that they are draft proposals and that the final pattern of non-metropolitan districts will require to be approved by both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution before it becomes finally effective. The Boundary Commissions will be a permanent and independent piece of machinery similar to that set up to consider changes in Parliamentary constituencies, and they will keep under regular review the boundaries of the principal authorities—that is to say the counties as well as the districts and the London boroughs.
The Bill reflects the Government's belief in the importance and value of parish councils and community councils at a more local level. All existing parishes with their areas, constitution and powers, in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties in England are retained intact. There are separate provisions in the Bill for Wales and these, too, provide for retention of a local level of authorities to be known as communities. Many further parish councils will later be established to succeed those authorities in free-standing towns part of whose present statutory duties will pass to the newer and larger district authorities. Recommendations about these successor parishes and a review of the pattern of existing parishes will in due course be matters for the Boundary Commission and the new district authorities.
To turn to borough status, the Government have been at pains to stress their desire not to disturb more than is absolutely necessary the dignities and ancient privileges of local authorities. Titles such as "City" and "Royal Borough" and the continuance of the mayoralty are matters to which great importance is attached by individual towns. This is entirely understandable. and we have therefore had very full discussions with local government bodies to seek ways in which these titles and privileges 20 may be retained, notwithstanding the changes which reorganisation inevitably makes necessary. Clauses 3 and 22 of the Bill permit the new authorities at district level to petition Her Majesty for Royal charters granting borough status, and there are special provisions in these clauses dealing with the continuity of borough status where such charters are promised.
As a result of further consultations, the Government will he proposing additional Amendments to the Bill in your Lordships' House to preserve the continuity of existing charter provisions and ancient privileges in the case of towns which may in future be operating at parish level. This is a somewhat detailed and complicated topic, however, and I think your Lordships would agree that the present moment—at Second Reading—is not the right time for me to go further into it. We shall have a more suitable moment for debate to discuss the topic when the Government Amendments come forward at a later stage.
I turn to three matters of importance affecting members. The first of these is elections. All county councillors will be elected together every fourth year. In the metropolitan districts all councillors will retire by thirds, so that there will be a district council election in each of the three years between the county council elections. In the non-metropolitan districts it is proposed that the authorities should be able to choose between these two systems, so that the district council is either elected as a whole or would retire by thirds.
We have concluded that all councillors in the new system should consist of members directly elected. Regarding aldermen, the ancient title of "Alderman" is retained in the power to create honorary aldermen. The benefit of the long experience and wisdom and judgment of particular individuals can be secured by co-option on to particular committees as it may be required.
The Bill makes proposals regarding allowances for members. It is important that able candidates should not be deterred from serving on the new authorities by the prospect of financial disadvantage. We have concluded, however, that membership of a local authority should not become a salaried occupation. 21 The Bill provides for a new code of allowances for elected members, the basis of which will be a flat-rate attendance allowance, claimable as of right. It will no longer be necessary, as with the present financial-loss allowance, for a councillor to submit a claim form certifying that an actual amount of financial loss has been incurred. This change will be of benefit to all but particularly to self-employed members. The date on which the new system of allowances will come into operation—in April, 1973, or April, 1974—will be settled before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. The level of the new allowances will be fixed by Order after the Bill has become law, but in time for candidates at the first elections to the new authorities to know what that level will be.
I turn now to functions. Certain functions must remain everywhere with the counties: responsibility for broad planning policies and for the preparation of structure plans; the whole range of highway and traffic functions; the fire service and police. Outside the metropolitan areas the counties will be responsible for the personal social services, for education and libraries. In the metropolitan areas the districts will have the resources to carry out these services. Districts everywhere will be generally responsible for local plans and for most planning control; for housing; for most environmental health functions and, concurrently with the county councils, for a wide range of functions connected with amenities such as parks, museums and entertainments.
A further discussion of the allocation and exercises of functions will of course be appropriate at the Committee stage, but I will deal with one or two of them now. First of all, planning. Here it has been our aim to strengthen the local voice in planning matters and to draw the fullest advantage from the complementary roles of the new authorities so that together counties and districts can develop and consider policies apt for their own particular areas. What we propose is that the broader strategic issues will be for the county planning authorities; and, at the other end of the scale, the planning control decisions which directly impinge on the local environment should rest with district planning authorities. The debate has been about the middle ground, par- 22 ticularly about local plans. Here I believe the case for allocating the main formal responsibility to districts has become more widely recognised. Of course, there are arguments on both sides and some local plans will have significant strategic content. That is why we have provided for authorities together to settle development plan schemes—setting out who does which local plan, in what order, and how the relationships between plans are to be co-ordinated. And the provisions about the certification of local plans will provide a sensible way of ensuring that plans do not diverge or conflict.
It makes sense in practice, too, that district plans and most planning control should go together to the district planning authorities. Only those planning applications which really go to the root of county policies are to be reserved to counties. All others are to be settled by districts, subject only to a limited and necessary provision to enable counties to intervene to ensure that their wider interests are not substantially or adversely affected. The merits of these proposals taken together are now, I believe, generally understood, and the Bill itself states an ample framework in which joint working can be achieved. We want to continue the discussions we have had to see how in practice this can be further developed. There is, however, one innovation in particular which has been widely welcomed. I mean, of course, the provision which will for the first time give those parish councils who wish it the right to receive notice of all planning applications in their areas. We are sure that it is feasible to confer this right to be notified upon the parishes without interposing further delays in a system where there are felt to be too many already.
A brief word about the National Parks. Our proposals in the Bill follow broadly the solution proposed by the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association in their earlier joint statement. We are satisfied that, together with the improved financial arrangements, what we propose will provide a sound foundation for the future administration of our National Parks. Our proposals for administration are that there should be a single executive authority for each park; that a comprehensive plan for each park should be prepared; 23 that a National Park officer should be appointed for each park and that the greater part of the overall cost of managing and administering the National Parks should be borne by the nation through the Exchequer. The first three of these matters are dealt with in this Bill in Clause 179 and Schedule 17 and the last will be dealt with in the forthcoming Local Government Finance Bill.
Among functions for special mention at this stage I should like briefly to discuss refuse collection and disposal in England. At present the functions of both collection and disposal are carried out—except in Greater London where the boroughs collect refuse and the G.L.C. disposes of it—by the councils of county boroughs, boroughs, urban districts and rural districts. As a result of Amendments moved and carried in another place the Bill now provides that the new district councils should be responsible for refuse collection and for refuse disposal in non-metropolitan counties. This is contrary to the Government's proposals that refuse collection should, as a truly local service, be allocated to district councils, while refuse disposal should be allocated to county councils, because the control and co-ordination of waste disposal facilities in the future needs to be exercised over wide areas. We shall be asking your Lordships to amend the Bill again at this point to reflect the original intentions of the Government.
I turn now to arrangements between authorities, and am returning to more general matters. It has been a basic aim that the legislation should clearly indicate which authorities are statutorily responsible for each particular function. But at the same time—though without shifting that ultimate statutory responsibility—we have provided the widest and most flexible powers to enable authorities to cooperate and to make arrangements between themselves for the exercise of functions in whatever way most conveniently and sensibly suits the needs of their areas. Local authorities may set up joint committees or one authority may place its staff at the disposal of another authority. Another way is also provided for in what is now Clause 100 which permits one authority to arrange for a function to be discharged by another authority, an arrangement which I refer 24 to as an agency arrangement. With certain exceptions referred to in Clause 100—briefly those for which special statutory committees are retained in the fields of education, the personal social services and police—such agency arrangements can be made throughout the whole range of local government functions and they can operate in both directions: a district may arrange for its functions to be exercised by a county andvice versa.
Agency arrangements may be made between the new authorities at any time after they have been elected, either before or after April 1974. But the extent to which such arrangements are in force on that date will have important consequences for the initial management structures and staffing arrangements of the new authorities at each level. In the ordinary course agency arrangements will be left entirely to be settled by agreement between the authorities concerned, but the importance of the initial arrangements under Clause 100 has led the Government to the conclusion that special machinery is needed for the transitional period. For this reason my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, announced, during the debates on the Bill in another place, that the Government would be proposing a new clause in your Lordships' House dealing with this subject. This new provision would still leave the arrangements to be settled by agreement wherever possible, but would also allow a right of appeal to the appropriate Minister should there be disagreement on the arrangements which are to operate as from April 1, 1974. This right of appeal would cover all the services for which agency arrangements might be made under Clause 100. It would cover not only the terms of any arrangement but also whether such an agency arrangement is appropriate at all in any particular place or as regards a particular service.
Voluntary agreements are still to be preferred to any form of Ministerial arbitration. To assist authorities to reach such agreements, my right honourable friend has also undertaken to initiate consultations between the central Departments and the local authority associations on the services in which agency arrangements might generally be appropriate and the sort of agency arrangements that might be made. This machinery is 25 intended to apply solely to the transitional period, and for this reason it will of course have regard to the ways in which services are now being provided and the need to avoid unnecessary disruption of organisations which are going concerns. The financial provisions in the Bill generally do no more than adapt and apply the existing law relating to finance, rating and valuation. The Government published a Green Paper last year—The Future Shape of Local Government Finance—as a basis for public discussion. Consultations have been proceeding upon this: it is the Government's intention to promote separate legislation on this subject during the next Session in time for any changes to become operative as from April 1, 1974.
Before leaving the powers and finances of local government I should refer to Clause 134 which permits authorities to spend the modest amount of ½p for the general benefit of their area and for certain other matters not specifically or otherwise authorised. The figure of ½p is a rough translation into decimal terms of the old "free penny" but it will be noted that parishes who make wide use of this power—are now put on an equal footing with other authorities. Hitherto, they have been restricted to a lower financial limit and, so far as parishes are concerned, a new ½p is equivalent to about 5 times the sum now available to them. In addition the clause gives the Secretary of State power to alter the financial limit by order, and my right honourable friend has already said in another place that he proposes to reconsider, before 1974, whether the limit proposed in the Bill is appropriate to the new situation in which we shall find ourselves when reorganisation takes effect. It is my expectation that he will wish to propose a figure substantially above ½p for all types of authorities. This I am sure will be widely used, not least for the enhancement of the local environment.
I turn now to the programme of implementation. Many of the joint committees of authorities within each new county and district, although not required by Statute until Clause 251 is in force, are in fact already established and doing useful preparatory work. Their recommendations can be laid before the new authorities when those have been elected 26 in accordance with Parts I and II of the Bill—the new counties of England and Wales in April next year, the districts of Wales and the metropolitan districts of England in May 1973, and the districts of England in June 1973. This programme provides the shadow authorities with a year or thereabouts to get "into the saddle". The extra burden of work on the staff of local authorities is, needless to say, formidable, but all are agreed—and this was the main point that came over in our debate last March—that whatever has now to be done is best done quickly.
I turn now to management structures. The existing authorities will need to prepare proposals for their successors to consider, dealing with the internal organisation and management structure of the new authorities. With this in mind my right honourable friend, acting jointly with the local authorities associations, set up a study group to examine this problem and to produce advice for the guidance of the new county and district councils. This group's advice will be published in about three weeks from now—on August 21
Management structures are closely inter-related with staffing needs and staffing structures. Two Staff Commissions, as I have already said have been appointed—one for England and one for Wales. The Chairman of the Welsh Commission is Mr. Stewart Watson, and, as your Lordships will know, the English Commission is presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale. Their task is to advise the new authorities on the recruitment of staff, to advise Ministers on the safeguards for staff interests which must be given legal effect by order, to make sure that arrangements affecting local government employees are made only after the fullest consultation, to make sure that everyone knows what is happening, and to make sure that everyone is treated fairly. Here I am sure all of your Lordships would wish me to pay a tribute to the staff of local government at this time—a tribute to the work they have already done and to the work that they will need to do after this Bill is enacted, and to acknowledge our awareness of the fact that their work will continue long after our work on this Bill is over.
27 In conclusion, my Lords, I said that this Bill was comprehensive. The fact that a Peer with an English title opens this debate, and a Peer with a Welsh title closes it. emphasises that the Bill embraces fully both Wales and England. It deals with the areas of local government; it deals with the functions of local government; it deals with the machinery of local government, and it modernises and consolidates the Statute law of local government. With these provisions in this Bill coupled to the further provisions on local government finance, on the reorganisation of water services and on the National Health Service (all the subjects of further legislation) we will have undertaken the most comprehensive revision of local administration ever attempted. I believe that all this will provide an up-to-date framework for the efficient administration of a complex network of local services, one that can be expanded and adapted in the decades ahead and one in which local democracy can continue to flourish vigorously, and one in which ancient rights, traditional loyalties and civic pride can continue to play their full part. My Lords, I beg to move that the Local Government Bill be now read a Second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford).