LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND AND WALES

HL Deb 05 May 1976 vol 370 cc564-618

4. 23.p.m.

Debate resumed.

The EARL of LONGFORD

My Lords, I acknowledge with gratitude my exalted position in the order of speakers; it is not as high as I have been when I used to play some part in allocating the positions. I take it as a compliment to the old Oxford City Labour Party, of which I was once an ardent member under the leadership of the late Richard Crossman. He was not restrained in those days by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, because that was long before her time, and not even by the Dame, as she came to be called in his diaries, but by the aunt by marriage of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, Lady Townsend. Those were exhilarating times.

Of course, it is possible to discuss this topic under the heading of constitutional structure and procedure or under the heading of the issues that divide the parties —I will not say of Party politics; we never think of them nowadays in this House—or again from the point of view of the social reformer and social worker. I shall be mainly concerned with that last aspect. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing this subject, and refer to the thoughtful speeches of the noble Lord who dealt mainly with the structure, and of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who dealt with structure and some of the Party issues.

With the greatest respect, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to realise that when he felt he was speaking in a very non-Party way and quite dispassionately, he was in fact making a speech that could not possibly have been made from this side of the House, except by someone about to cross the Floor. He was putting forward all these matters from a Conservative point of view. For example, the noble Lord alluded to what seemed to be the rather dangerous demand to increase facilities for the disabled. He mentioned them as topics having been raised at Question Time. Of course, he is entitled to his outlook, and he has stressed the fact that the cost to local government must not be allowed to increase. The noble Lord is entitled to say that we on this side of the House, and the leadership under the Prime Minister and the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Healey, have accepted officially, as a Party at any rate, the need for very considerable restraint on local government spending. But without pursuing that topic, if I may put the matter simply and I hope not unfairly, the noble Lord sees this as a kind of permanent restriction. We see it as a temporary restriction, and regard with the greatest possible regret the fact that in the years ahead, owing to the crisis we have just been discussing, we must have this unwelcome restraint. The noble Lord seemed to be laying down a kind of absolute principle that local government costs are not increased, but I do not want to pursue that aspect this afternoon.

As regards the constitutional structure, one of the many achievements of the late Mr. Richard Crossman was to set up the Redcliffe-Maud Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Recicliffe-Maud, and his colleagues produced a report widely favoured on this side of the House, but which has met with little favour by and large, from the other side of the House.

I am an unrepentant supporter of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, perhaps on personal grounds. There is nobody, in my own generation anyway, who seems to me to have done more public service, one way and another, than the noble Lord, so I would be biased in favour of any report of his. But, again, I will not pursue the topic of the virtues of the Redcliffe-Maud Report, or the proposal of the Labour Party that we are now bringing forward as compared with what we have now got.

I agree that we, or whoever is in power, must make the best of the existing structure, but that does not mean we cannot hope to alter it. If the Labour Party are in power for a long time, I am sure it will be altered quite fundamentally. I have no doubt about that. Having said that, I want to concern myself with how we can make the greatest possible increase in the social services during this period of financial stringency, which I must accept as a fact for our purposes this afternoon—a temporary fact, I hope, but a fact. I should like to lay the greatest stress on what I am going to say—I have given the noble Baroness some notice of this—about the difficulties that arise from the discrepancy between the standards provided in each particular service by the best local authorities and the not-so-good ones, or if you like the bad ones. I shall be dealing mainly with that discrepancy.

If we are to talk about improving the general standards slightly, we must realise that in some cases a large increase is necessary before anything like a tolerable standard is attained. I should like to take three services, all of which depend considerably on assistance derived from the local authorities. In the first place, let us take the mentally handicapped. The phrase, "the Cinderella of the social services" is rather worn out, so I will try to avoid it, but no one is likely to deny that we, as a nation, have spent far too little on the mentally handicapped hitherto. There has been some small but steady progress in recent years.

Let us take two examples, the local authority adult training centres and the local authority hostels for children. The figures that I give are maybe not the latest, but they are the latest available. Of course, the reconstruction has affected the situation but not the underlying point. The number of places in local authority adult training centres rose from 22, 000 to over 34, 000 between 1970 and 1975. That was a steady progress in those five years of more than 50 per cent. But it was still below the target set in the White Paper of 1971, which mentioned 72, 000 places. And the same was true about the figures for hostels. So there is no possible ground for satisfaction, let alone complacency, with the position as it is now.

How can we make sure that this limited rise, this trickle, continues under the conditions that we are all now aware of, the conditions of stringency? I am not accusing the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, of being in any way less compassionate than I am, and everyone will agree that this small increase ought to continue, but will it continue in the world of the next few years, in the Britain of the next few years? A disquieting feature arises in all the social services, but is nowhere more noticeable than in this. This is the factor that I mentioned earlier I was going to stress, this sharp discrepancy between the good authorities and the backward ones. Take the adult training centres. There are 91 places per 100, 000, I am told, or there were, according to the last count, in Dorset; down to 40, less than half, in Cornwall. In regard to hostels and homes for children, taking county by county, we find that Staffordshire in 1975 had 77 places, and no places at all had then been provided—I may be told otherwise by the Minister, although she has not been given notice of these details—in Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Devon, Kent, Cambridgeshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. So there are these very great diversities between the good places and the bad.

The general point I want to raise, having given notice to the Minister, is this. What leverage are we going to exert on the retrograde authorities to bring them up to the level of the good ones at a time when we are in a general sense saying there must be an attitude of restraint? I would urge, of course, that the mentally handicapped in general should receive a higher priority than they have had or seems to be likely. But may I concentrate on the question I have just put: how can the retrograde authorities in particular be levered up to the level of the good ones?

Of course, I realise and all of us who have been involved in local government know, that we cannot have it all ways. We know it is of the essence of local government that there should be a large element of discretion, and that discretion will be used in various ways; some people will use it more generously than others. But in what I have called the age of stringency the need for reducing these variations, or at any rate making sure that the minimum is provided, is ever greater and ever more obvious.

I would say a few words about the physically disabled. I am still thinking of all this from the point of view of the local authorities, who are our concern today. The main point that I have just been making applies equally here; there is a sharp contrast between the good and the bad. The Disablement Income Group circulated recently all directors of social services, to ask what the position was likely to be in the coming years in view of the threatened retrenchment. I have the answers available here. They certainly provide an astonishing variety. Many of the authorities consider themselves unable to continue—and I think it is true of most of the authorities—with previously planned rates of growth. Some are actually cutting back services. This is all the more serious in view of the backlog in recent years. In some cases, of course, it is not a question of just prodding someone who has fallen far behind, but of trying to encourage the average authority to follow the best ones. The Disablement Income Group attach particular importance to the Crossroads scheme, which has been in operation in the Rugby area since 1974, and perhaps elsewhere. Under this scheme, which represents co-operation between an enlightened authority and a charitable body, the local authority provides care attendance for severely disabled persons who have no relatives to look after them. They are thus enabled to remain at home. That not only saves money, but may make the difference between the break-up of many marriages and their preservation. Here the point I am making is that somehow or other we must induce the average authority, somehow or other we must stimulate them, to emulate their enlightened brethren. Once again, have the Government any ideas as to how this can be achieved?

Finally, I would say a few words about the homeless, in whom many other noble Lords besides myself take a special interest. The variation between the different local authorities is just as blatant here as in the other cases. The Minister revealed in a reply given last December that, for example, to take only one point, about three-quarters of all authorities restrict their help to those who have connections with their area. Anyone who knows the problem knows that that is quite inadequate. One could give many other examples of the discrepancies. The Government's objective, the Minister said at the end of last year, will be to secure the wider observance of the best practices, which, in his own words, an increasing number of authorities are adopting. Here, again, we come back to the familiar problem. How do we raise the standards of all the authorities; how do we induce them, to use a neutral word, to move in the direction of the best ones?

This becomes more and more important the more the stringency operates. In the case of the homeless, it seems that in principle we have the Government on our side. I have given the noble Baroness notice of this question. The obvious need is for legislation to set out clearly the minimum obligations of district councils towards the homeless. Last November Mr. Crosland, then the Minister for the Environment, indicated that he intended to place the statutory responsibility for accommodating the homeless on the housing authorities. Well, that was what was said last December, and here we are in May and, so far as I know, we have not heard any more. I beg the noble Baroness, whose heart is very much in all these matters, to say that this legislation will be brought forward at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament. The noble Baroness's own sympathies are not in doubt, but is she in a position to make an official statement?

There are, of course, endless other disparities and anomalies in the social service provision of the various local authorities. To some extent, as I have said, they are an essential ingredient of the local autonomy that we all prize highly. But at this time, when local authorities which have not been doing at all well are being given an excuse by the general need for economy to continue in their sluggish ways, it becomes more and more imperative to watch them closely and to guide them gently but firmly into better paths.

4.40 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing this Motion this afternoon, and in following the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I think I should declare an interest as president of a county association of local councils, because much of what I will have to say this afternoon refers to the lowest tier of the local authorities. I was very much interested in what the noble Earl said, because we both share a great interest in the operation of the social services.

The noble Earl asked your Lordships a number of rhetorical questions. If I may be allowed to interpolate, I think he asked, how can we ensure that this limited trickle of expenditure will continue? In the course of my remarks I hope to demonstrate ways in which economies can indeed sustain the social services and perhaps improve them, though I agree it is in a limited way. Of one thing I am absolutely certain, and that is that the Local Government Act 1972 was both necessary and desirable in the way that it introduced two, or, in effect, three tiers of local authority. It is interesting, looking back on the speeches on Second Reading on 31st July 1972, to see how things have fallen out. I must say that I was wholly in agreement with my noble friend Lord Sandford in what he said on that day. I entirely agree with his comments today, and especially his four closing points on how we should address ourselves to this subject.

I must say that I find it difficult in many ways to follow the coherent pattern of the Liberal Party in this particular field. While I agree to some limited extent that even at the present moment the size of some districts is a little large, nevertheless on Second Reading of the Local Government Bill in 1972, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned particularly both provincial and regional authorities. Of course this is very much part and parcel of the Liberal concept of very large regional groupings.

So we come to the state of local government as it is today with, in effect, three tiers. As I said a little earlier, I wish to address myself to the lowest tier, the local councils. We have a large barrage of criticism addressed to local government, and we first ought to clarify this criticism in two categories. Are these criticisms of inflation, or are they criticisms of the two tier system? A number of us would agree that many of the criticisms relate to inflation and the results of inflation rather than to the structure itself. Had it been decided to adopt the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, it may have been possible to demonstrate that the results would have been even worse so far as the inflation cost of local government services is concerned. However, it should be in the forefront of our minds to consider the present need to economise and cut down waste, as both my noble friend Lord Sandford and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, have said. Let us look, therefore, at the field of concurrent functions between the district and local councils. Here is a fruitful field for your Lordships to examine because quite substantial savings can be made in the cost of administration.

The overheads of managing matters of detail from a rather distant centre are disproportionately high. This can be demonstrated in a quite recent example from Leicestershire. The problem was how to care for 26 churchyards. The district council were initially asked to estimate the cost of looking after them. They proposed an estimate of £16, 000. The same project was offered to local councils, and they estimated on precisely the same terms of reference and achieved a saving of £10, 000 by offering a budget of £6, 000. This they achieved in the use of direct labour. This demonstrates both a need and a readiness of local and district councils to work together, and to see how often things can be done more effectively, efficiently, and cheaply without lowering standards. This surely is what my noble friend Lord Sandford was saying in regard to partnership. I know that he related it to the partnership between local authorities and central Government. Nevertheless, in our estimation, there should be a similar sense of partnership between the different tiers between the local authority. Taking the matter of local government finance one stage further, I should mention that the National Association of Local Councils has given both written and oral evidence to the Layfield Committee, whose report we now await.

I refer now to the question of local government boundaries, and the two different systems for England and Wales which were enshrined in the 1972 Act. The two different systems were the two different systems of organisation and rearrangement, because in Wales an initial Community Review concerned with geography is now complete. In Wales they are better able to proceed with the district electoral arrangements, whereas in England the system was reversed; the review of electoral arrangements came first, with no intention of starting to review parish boundaries until 1979. The underlying reason for reversing these two processes may have been administrative, because of the shortage of commissioners to act in this important capacity. Nevertheless, I think it can be said that Wales has quite a head start on England in this particular field. This means a risk in the organisation of parish boundaries in England because the shape of parishes is likely to be contrived for electoral reasons and not by the natural features of geography—in other words, the computer wins. This is a source of anxiety to the National Association of Local Councils, and perhaps it may be possible to confound this and to reassure those concerned. I offer this as a present anxiety to your Lordships for consideration.

One of the more important aspects of the Local Government Act 1972, so far as local councils are concerned, was a new right enshrined in that Act for local councils to be shown plans. I should like to address your Lordships in regard to the question of planning, and planning permission. Nearly 30 years have passed since the 1947 Act, and perhaps it is appropriate to cast our minds in this direction for a few moments. Clearly it was in the mind of Dr. Alice Coleman earlier this week, when addressing the Royal Geographic Society on this subject. On Monday evening Dr. Alice Coleman suggested three serious defects in the planning concept. She suggested that ribbon development has in fact increased, whereas the 1947 Act aimed at its reduction. She suggested, as most of us are only too well aware, that farmland is disappearing at a very high rate indeed; and, thirdly, that in the past 30 years we have seen an ever increasing loss of our cultivatable acreage. Dr. Coleman is in a very good position to assess this because she has been measuring and analysing the first utilisation study by Professor Dudley Stamp in 1933.

There are really four main causes of present anxieties. Local authorities are overloaded with vague and differing criteria of land use; secondly, local authorities are using computers instead of using their feet and maps; thirdly, derelict land is being used in insufficient quantities and, fourthly, official planning ideas very often conflict with local planning considerations. This field in which that lowest tier, the local council, can operate can, in our view, be extremely beneficial on environmental grounds. If Dr. Coleman's criticism that an insufficient use of local knowledge is being made, surely the local council can bring to bear with great benefit its intimate knowledge of a district. We discussed a few weeks ago the question of allotments, a matter of great consideration among many residents both in the Greater London Council area and throughout the United Kingdom. Once again, the knowledge within the local area is very much in the hands of the local council and can be brought to bear with value.

I wish to comment on the point my noble friend Lord Sandford made, about breathing on the dry bones. No body other than that lowest tier of local authority is able to breath with such benefit. It is possible to have a much more intimate relationship with the electorate through local councils. Had there been unitary authorities, the sense of remoteness from the electorate by the elected representatives would be enormous, and I suggest that the local council can, in present circumstances, benefit democracy enormously. The things which really count to so many people in this country are relatively simple matters, but they are, nevertheless, immensely important. For example, over 8 million people every week wish to collect their pensions, a difficult task in remote areas. Here is a field in which the local council and local representatives can help those in rural areas. An efficient prescription service can very often be assisted by a local council. The health and social services, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, can benefit very greatly from an association between voluntary bodies and the local council. It is almost certain that in the next few years, as unfortunately the stringency may last for more than 12 months, local authorities will be calling on, and indeed expecting, voluntary bodies to help them in these very important fields, as they are doing most helpfully now.

I end by referring to the subject of partnership. I am sure that a sense of partnership and association between the tiers of local authority and voluntary bodies will greatly benefit local government in England and Wales today.

The Earl of LYTTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a simple and elementary question? Has he been applying the term "local councils" to what other speakers have referred to as district councils, in other words, parish councils?

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I have been carefully referring to "local councils" since the term "parish councils" was changed in 1972. Now the organisation is the National Association of Local Councils. I beg the noble Lord's pardon if I misled him, and I certainly did not intend to mislead him or the House. I have been referring to the parish or local council.

4.55p.m.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, I must start by redisclosing an interest because I still have the honour to be president of the Association of County Councils. There are presidents and presidents, and they have very different powers. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Sandys, who is a very powerful character, has powers equivalent to his character. In the case of my Association, which has the most kindly and benevolent relations with its president, I am never instructed what I am to say and, so far as I know, no member of it ever reads what I have said. I must also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for my absence, owing to another engagement during the first part of his speech.

The new—if they can still so be called —local authorities come in for more than their fair share of criticism, much of it ill-informed, and I want today, as my noble friend Lord Sandford has, to commend the new authorities for the increasing success with which they are grappling with their very formidable current problems. Most of them seem to be settling down well and adapting themselves with notable success, getting the measure of those problems and, more important, building up new loyalties and giving an increasingly efficient service, and this after only two years of the new system.

Because some people are now questioning whether there was ever a need for reorganisation in 1972—I am glad that Lord Sandford referred to that—it is as well to recall why reorganisation was undertaken. During nearly 90 years of their existence there had been dramatic changes in the work of local authorities; the quantum and the complications of the services had grown out of all knowledge. Whitehall had to deal directly with 1, 400 local authorities, and this at a time when the proportion of the local authorities' expenditure that was being met by central funds had grown to more than half. In some cases new services involved technical aspects which were beyond the powers of the small staffs of the smaller authorities. There was, therefore, general agreement that some reorganisation was necessary. As noble Lords will remember, the Royal Commission reported in favour of unitary authorities, broadly on a county basis and that was accepted in principle by the Government of thè day. Eventually the succeeding Government preferred a system of two main tiers; as Lord Sandys said, there are three tiers of local government. That was adopted and personally I think that it was the right choice. I could not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his preference for the unitary system. Had unitary authorities been adopted, the current criticisms of remoteness would, it seems to me, be bound to have been more vigorous and more justified.

Local government expenditure has increased rapidly in recent years. What are the main reasons for this, so far as one can sort them out? They are not, in the main, as a result of local government reorganisation. I am sure that Lord Sandford was right on that. In fact, as he said, it is some confirmation of this that the expenditure of authorities which were not reorganised has increased pro rata, in fact at a slightly higher rate. Nor was it because local authorities had taken the bit between their teeth, so to speak, and rushed off to initiate new projects on their own. The chief reasons were unquestionably, first, inflation—as Lord Sandys said —secondly, the additional responsibilities that have been continuously laid by Parliament on local authorities without any very accurate costing having been done at the time; and, thirdly, the higher standards and remuneration which have been current in the public service since that day.

As an example of what I mean—I will not weary the House with other examples because noble Lords will knowwhat I mean when I say that they have been continuously loaded with new functions—in 1974 under the heading of "Consumer protection "that Department was faced with five Acts of Parliament, eights sets of regulations, nine orders, two sets of rules and one direction, all of which necessitated extra work and more staff. I am not criticising that. It is a statement of fact illustrating what I mean. There are some cases in which the new structure is proving more expensive. Perhaps the best example is in the planning field. Reorganisation provided that the responsibilities for planning should be shared between the counties and districts and that has unquestionably caused a need for more technical staff—who are hard to find—and this is a source of additional expenditure. In some cases, it is quite feasible to argue that the scales of remuneration at the time of reorganisation may have been on the high side but the overriding reason is without doubt the general expansion in all national social services which have received the approval of the electorate and the public at large and which of course cost money. That is a point which is never made as clearly as it should be when the legislation is passed. As I have said before, I never remember a case of a Bill where the financial memorandum estimate bore any relation to what the measure ultimately cost.

We are shortly to have an authoritative report on local government finance from Mr. Layfield's Committee. This will be an important report. Few people are expecting any dramatic or revolutionary recommendations and, in particular, I believe that the chance of a feasible and workable new source of local finance will prove a very difficult search. Certainly, the increase in local rates over the past few years has been very painful. Some people say that rates as a source of local government revenue should be entirely eliminated. I imagine that most people believe that that would not be possible even if it were desirable. I believe that rates are a sensible, entirely practicable and fair basis for some parts of local government expenditure. However, bearing in mind the manifold functions of local authorities today, rates do not provide a fair or reasonable source for the major part of that expenditure. We must await the Layfield report and must not expect too much from it, though it will be an authoritative report from very know-ledgable people.

I turn to the policies of devolution for Scotland and Wales. There is some renewed talk about a new tier of local government for the rest of the United Kingdom. As regards Wales, I do not wish to say more than that prevailing Welsh opinion seems quite strongly to feel that if the proposed policies of devolution were in force, local government in Wales would not be brought nearer to the citizen but rather would be further off. Everybody who talks about Wales with the greatest knowledge insists that the problem is entirely different from the Scottish problem. I therefore trust that we shall have a separate Bill for Wales if one is brought forward, rather than having one Bill for the two countries or two Bills brought forward at the same moment. If that were done, I believe that we should get into a real mess. My own opinion is clear: it is that if there were to be a new, additional tier superimposed on what we have at present and based on regions, it would be certain to destroy local government as we have it, and to result, as I believe my noble friend Lord Sandys suggested, in our having six tiers of government; that is, the lowest level, the district councils, the county councils, the regional level, Parliament and the EEC. We should be far and away the most overgoverned country in the world, and the most expensively governed, too.

It is true that, if any powers given to a regional tier were to be delegated entirely by central Government, that would be a different thing. However, none of us who knows anything about local government believes for a moment that that would be the situation. Some of the powers would not be delegated from the centre but would be brought up from local authority level to the new regional body. I should like to declare my own view; that is, that if one looks at the rest of the United Kingdom and considers each region, one will find that in many parts of the United Kingdom there is no real homogeneity and no identifiable regional loyalties which would be strong enough to justify a separate and additional tier of government. I speak with special knowledge of my own area in the South-West, where the distances are large. We have thought much about this and we cannot look forward with enthusiasm to regional government even in an area which many people might think of as being ideal for that purpose. On another occasion, I may tell your Lordships more about the differences between Devonians and Cornishmen, but perhaps I should not do so now.

I believe that there has never been a time in local government when more consideration has been given to questions of efficient management, manpower use and the standard of conduct of members. I am sure that it would be wrong to think that our new authorities have any complacency whatever about these important matters. I suppose that the major problem at present facing local authorities is how to reconcile diminished revenue in real terms with the maintenance of their services and standards. With continuing inflation, it is clear that these things cannot be completely reconciled. Perhaps understandably, central Government, while appreciating the problem, have not been eager to suggest where cuts should be made. Local government does not quarrel with that because the last thing we want is detailed directions from the centre as to how our resources should be disposed. I am sure that in the present situation some reduction of services and standards is unavoidable. I hope—and I go as far as that with the noble Earl, Lord Longford—that such reductions will be temporary and not permanent, but I am afraid that they cannot be avoided altogether. However, I hope that, whether the reductions be permanent or temporary, Parliament will never again load so many new responsibilities on to local government or do so precipitately as was done during the past 10 years.

Since reorganisation, there has undoubtedly been some increase in Party politics at county and, perhaps, district level. On some issues, this is not inappropriate if apathy is not to be the alternative. However, in other cases it is surely unproductive and will be kept, one hopes, within reasonable limits. Those of us who have sat on local authority bodies know that so often the best work is done when there is a general consensus as to what will be acceptable and in accordance with the desires of local people. The noble Earl, Lord Longford—and I am not in a particularly critical mood this afternoon— referred to discrepancies in standards between various local authorities. One understands that. But we really have to decide whether we are in favour of local autonomy, discretion and choice. If so, I am sure that we must accept some lack of uniformity as a necessary price for that autonomy. In my opinion, it is a price which is well worth paying. If we try to get both, we shall somehow fall between two stools.

My Lords, the greatest practical need at present is to give the new local authorities time to settle down and to get the measure of their recently imposed responsibilities and functions. Most of them are doing well and making real progress. Ministers have recently testified to the energetic efforts which local authorities are making to cope with the current financial restrictions and stringencies, and I believe that Ministers are right to pay that tribute. The new arrangements by which Ministers are consulting representatives of the local authorities, through their Associations, are working, from the angle of my association at any rate, extremely well. We believe that that is a tremendous step forward and we hope that successive Secretaries of State will keep up the momentum and show that they believe in this method, as the Secretary of State has since this has been started. We have to start training a new Secretary of State now, but we shall take that in our stride.

May I say on behalf of our Association that we believe in this and appreciate it, and the meetings held so far have been encouraging. My Lords, let us give these new Authorities—and they are new, because they have only two years operating experience behind them—a reasonable time to show what they can do. Their members and their staffs have skills, experience and adaptability. They justify our confidence.

5.11 p.m.

Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing this subject and by apologising to your Lordships for not speaking on local government in general but rather confining myself to speaking about London. There are three reasons for so doing. The first is that I know something about London, having been a local councillor first on the London County Council, and then on the Greater London Council, for a total of 15 years. Furthermore, it is my view that the problems of London are the problems of metropolitan authorities writ large. It is also my view that Parliament should not be allowed to continue to forget the problems of London. London suffers from two problems in particular, and they are to some extent interrelated. One is size; the other is deprivation. I say that these problems are interrelated because most large cities have their deprived areas due to the fact that such cities are uneven in their development.

As your Lordships know, London extends to 610 square miles and has a density of 12, 800 residents in each square mile. It is an old city which was not planned; it grew up. The consequence of this is that there are many high cost problems in London. There are the high costs of operating here. One reason why costs are high is that there are only limited options for solutions to problems.

Let us consider transport. The Greater London Council is the traffic authority, and a week or so ago Members were taking us to task for our parking restrictions. There is a great demand for movement in London, and peak hour journeys by road and rail are at a premium. There is a sharp interaction of public and private transport in London. There is multiplicity of both destinations and networks in terms of transport. There are 8, 000 miles of roads and 680 miles of passenger railway track. When taken together with the fact that there is a high concentration of employment in central London—1, 250, 000 jobs—the length of work journeys in London is, on average, a 100 per cent. greater than the national average. The demands at any one time leave the London authorities no option, and that is why we do not apologise for the fact that we place public transport first and foremost. While we have some sympathy for the private road user, we feel that public transport must have priority in this city.

The density of traffic in London is 10 times greater than the national average, and in peak hours the density is 50 times greater. Altogether London has 4 per cent. of the road mileage of Great Britain, concentrated in 0.7 per cent. of its area, and it carries 10 per cent. of all the traffic. Your Lordships can recognise the inevitable consequence: there is congestion, and congestion increases costs of all public and private services which are dependent on road usage. But that is not all. It also slows down construction, and it impedes maintenance on both roads and buildings. London, as a capital city and as the cultural, administrative and financial heart of this nation, maintains a considerable number of special facilities and attracts a large number of tourists and visitors from home and abroad. Of course, in London it costs much more to acquire land or property, or to build, or to employ labour, than it does anywhere else in Britain.

Let us take housing. London's housing problems are of the same scale as the transport problems we have been talking about. There is a preponderance of old and decaying Victorian dwellings in London, and many of them suffer from a lack of exclusive basic amenities, such as hot water, a bath and indoor lavatory. The rents are high and over crowding and share accommodation abounds. There is considerable homelessness. I have figures for 1974, though not for 1975. In 1974 half the total number of people who sought assistance in this country because of homelessness were in London, and the same holds good for squatters. London has more than half the total number of this country's squatters.

The 1971 Census showed that while London contained only 16 per cent. of all households in England and Wales, it contained nearly 35 per cent. of those households living at a density of more than 1.5 persons per room. That same Census showed that, while 14 per cent. of London' s households shared accommodation, the national average was only 4 per cent. I may add that in fact in the case of inner London it was 21 per cent. Again, that Census showed that 22 per cent. of London' s households lacked or shared one of the basic amenities I mentioned earlier. The national average was 14 per cent.; and Liverpool, which was the next highest, was 16 per cent. London houses 10 per cent. of its population in half the country' s furnished tenancies; and, of course, as your Lordships know only too well, London' s privately-rented sector—that is, both furnished and unfurnished—has been dwindling quite sharply. In fact, it declined by 24 per cent. in the ten years from 1961 to 1971. I have already mentioned the rapid increase in the cost of everything. The consequence of that, of course, is that the cost of building houses in London has also increased tremendously. In fact, in 1974–75 the cost of building a GLC dwelling was £15, 300, and it is estimated that it will be £17, 000 this year.

Then—and this, today, is our biggest worry—there is the question of employment. There has been a rapid decline in the availability of skilled jobs in London near workers' homes. That is tied up with the first topic I mentioned—transport. At the same time, there has been a growth in the service industries, and many of the jobs in the service industries are, in fact, low paid. There is a higher rate of drift from job to job, as your Lordships would expect; and there are hard-core pockets of unemployment, particularly among the young. I mentioned that jobs have been declining in London. I can give your Lordships a figure. Jobs in manufacturing industry, which is where the number of jobs is in fact declining, fell by 550, 000 between 1961 and 1973; and in percentage terms that works out at 34 per cent. That is the drop in the number of jobs in manufacturing industry in London.

At the same time, however, between 1961 and 1971 some 80 per cent. of the jobs that were lost were in firms which were reducing the scale of their operations or closing down altogether, and 20 per cent. were in firms that moved out of London. In other words, not only were we losing a lot of jobs because people moved out of London, which is what one talks about frequently, but also many of the jobs were in firms which closed down altogether; in fact, the majority were. Of course, during this same period when we lost all these manufacturing jobs there was an increase of 80, 000 jobs in the service industries; and, as I said earlier, those jobs are low paid—not all of them, but many of them are.

In addition to the present predicament, as we see it much of London's existing employment is also threatened. More than 55 per cent. of the South-East Region' s small firms—that is, those which are employing, 100 workers or fewer—are in inner London. I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say, but Government policy—it has been so under the Governments of both Parties—restricts the growth of employment in industry in London. It has been impossible, so far, to get the Government of either Party to recognise that, while London as a whole may be prosperous, there are certain areas of London which are as deprived as any of the deprived areas for which special provisions are made by statute. For example, unemployment in Stepney is over 10 per cent. —it is 10.2 per cent. So it is in Poplar. It is not quite that in Canning Town, but it is 7.1 per cent. It is 6.3 per cent. in Brixton, and 5.8 per cent. in Deptford. Therefore, in some of these places it is much more than the 7 per cent. which qualifies for special attention. So we do have these deprived areas, and we in London should like the Government to recognise that fact. They are not areas in which there are 10, 000 people with 10 per cent. unemployed, because most of the boroughs in London are boroughs with a quarter of a million people. Therefore, these unemployment figures one gives amount to quite a lot of people.

To turn to education, many of our primary and secondary schools—and here I am speaking more about inner London—were built in the last century. We have a very high turnover of teachers. The reason for that, of course, is the high cost of living here in London, and also the stress of living in London. There is an easier life if you move out of the stress areas of London. There is a considerable gap between the number of children under the age of five in inner London and the number of places available in private and State nurseries; and, of course, as your Lordships know only too well, economic pressure makes it necessary for many of our mothers to go out to work. The consequence is that they go out to work and leave their children at home with untrained child-minders.

Of course, it is not only employment which has gone out of London: the population has gone, too. The population of London has dropped tremendously. The figures that I have show that for inner London, in the sixty years between 1911 and 1971, the population dropped from 4½ million to 2½ million. In the case of outer London, I have not the figures for such a long period; I have them only from 1951. The drop is not so large, but it is still a drop—from 5 million to 4½ million. The population of London today is only 7¼ million, and the projections are that by 1981 it will be 6.4 million to 6.7 million and by 1991 it will be 5½ million to 6½ million.

My Lords, having just pointed out the necessity for mothers to go to work, perhaps I can move on to the question of low incomes; because I have been speaking about the high cost of living in London. The problem facing low income families is accentuated in London by the high cost of living. There are many groups who are particularly vulnerable, groups such as the old, the sick, the unemployed, the one-parent family of which we have many and the service workers I have mentioned earlier because their pay is so low.

I have painted a difficult picture. I wanted your Lordships to look at the picture of London and to recognise the problems that face London government. In London, we have had two-tier government for ten years or more. The boroughs are the main organs of local government and the GLC has strategic powers over London as a whole and is responsible for the services for London as a whole. Incidentally, when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I thought that he would regard the GLC as an ideal council in that all the things he mentioned we have been doing for a long time. We opened our committees to the public long before it was the law to do so. We have had tenants on our local housing management committees for some time. We have had a register of councillors' pecuniary interests for some time. For those who have been talking in terms of seething expenditure, I may point out that, in spite of the picture I have just painted, the GLC was able to keep its rates steady this year, the same as it was last year.

The point about London government is that there is a great deal of co-operation between the GLC and the boroughs; in fact, London government could not work if there were not that degree of co-operation. I would say that the best example, because it is the most recent, of how well we co-operate is the fact that the GLC and the London Boroughs Association agreed on a land acquisition and development scheme under the Community Land Act, and there was such complete agreement that, in effect, it is that scheme which the Secretary of State is now to propound as the scheme for London. I thought I would give your Lordships that information because that is an example of the scale at which we co-operate.

That brings me to another field in which we are co-operating which is also a field of opportunity. The GLC and the riparian boroughs are co-operating in the Joint Docklands Committee to try to develop the docklands. The dock-lands is an important example of the opportunities you can have and the need to make sure you use them to the full. I would say that one major issue which is common to London and to other older cities is that there is much dereliction caused by the movement of population and economic activity from the central city areas. I am not saying that it is only London that suffers this, but merely that London suffers it worse than any other city because it is very much larger.

This particular picture is exemplified in the docklands. As a consequence of changing port technologies, there has been a progressive decline in the trade in the enclosed docks and river wharves and at the same time there has occurred the loss of industrial activity which I mentioned earlier. The consequence of that is that you have an area of decline in the docklands. There is obviously an urgent need to channel resources into such an area so that revitalisation can take place. The opportunity, as I said earlier, is a great one. Much of the basic infrastructure already exists. Land, unused, is close to a large population with varied skills and aptitudes. We need new and better homes to replace some of the outworn buildings in that area and we need to improve the services and the general wellbeing of the area in order to provide some happiness to the people who live there and to the additional population that it can now carry.

The Docklands Joint Committee have produced a strategy for meeting the necessary reconstruction; and they need to be complimented in that they have also approved a substantial commercial project in Surrey Docks, and are also initiating a steadily expanding housing programme. As I said earlier, it is imperative that they should be supported in developing this particular area. Your Lordships will gather from the story I have been telling that I am making a plea for additional financial resources for London—and I make no apology for making that plea. We are all awaiting the report of the Layfield Committee. In so far as the GLC is concerned, we made certain recommendations because we thought the best thing would be a mix of several taxes. In effect, a local authority can choose which mix it wants: for example, rates plus a local income tax, plus a sales tax, plus a tourist tax, plus a tax on motor spirit. In fact, we suggested that if the Government could rethink their policy on motor vehicle licensing, it might be a good idea if authorities like the GLC and the larger metropolitan authorities (who are the people who up to now have collected the tax) also kept the tax since they are in most instances also the traffic authority.

We also suggested a lottery. I will not go into that again. Your Lordships know that when the Lotteries Bill was going through this House, I tried to persuade the Government to accept Amendments which would make a lottery worth while to local authorities of the size of the GLC. They would not play and we had better leave that alone. Of course, whatever the Layfield recommendations are, they will require legislation and therefore will take time. So we are still back to where we always have been in London—that is, the rate support grant.

Our plea, and the plea I am making, is we should get our fair share of the rate support grant. We have never had our fair share of the rate support grant. For example, in 1974–75 London accounted for 19 per cent. of all relevant local authority expenditure and received 13.9 per cent. of the grant pool. That is typical. Last year we did better because of the ex-Secretary of State for the Environment who was supported by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. They saw the point, a point that I was making earlier in my speech, that although London's problems are great, their problems are of the same character though not as great as ours. They supported us in seeing that London had a more equitable share of the rate support grant. We received £102 million more than we otherwise would have done. Having obtained that, the Government insisted that they should claw back some of the amount that would have been London's proper share if the rate support grant had been distributed according to the national distribution formula. In other words, although we have moved forward, we are still not there because we feel that, if we are responsible for 19 per cent. of the expenditure, we should get 19 per cent. of the grant.

The argument of course has always been that London's resources are so great that in effect London can take care of its own problems. But I hope I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that our problems are a lot greater than people seem to think. Even if we have increased resources, we need those resources in order to cope with our increased problems. If I may give another figure to illustrate what I am talking about, when Government says that we have these improved resources, what they really mean is that Londoners are privileged in that they pay higher rates. I will illustrate this by giving the figure for the year 1975–76 where the average domestic rate in London was £130.87p; for non-metropolitan districts in England it was £87.93p and for Wales it was £53.68p. So the difference, what is called London' s additional resources, is in fact that Londoners have to pay higher rates. I hope from what I have said earlier, your Lordships will see that in forcing Londoners to pay these higher rates we are imposing a lot of hardship on a lot of people.

I hope it will be borne in mind that London is not just one homogeneous place; that London, being a large area, has prosperous areas and also deprived areas. I wanted to make a suggestion which I am sure the Minister herself can take on board. But it is something I hope the Prime Minister will take on board because it is my view that what we need is a Minister for urban affairs who will be high enough in the hierarchy of Government to be able to defend the metropolitan authorities and secure from the Treasury adequate resources to enable them to do their job. That is something I would throw out to my noble friend, and I hope she can let it drop in the right ears at the right time. It is my view that that is really what is required in so far as the metropolitan authorities are concerned. I also agree with much of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Sandford, about making additional use of the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance. I am sure that the Council can be made to do a lot more useful work than it is being used for at the moment. One would hope the Government will take that on board, too, and proceed to make much more use of the Council than is being done at the moment.

Several noble Lords have spoken about devolution. In so far as London is concerned, the general view of the London authorities—and it is not just the GLC, but also the boroughs, too—is that any devolution which will take place can be accommodated within the present structure. Whatever form of devolution from central Government is agreed upon, it should be within the present structure that exists in Greater London at the present time.

Finally, I want to make some points about democracy. One is the extent to which local authorities, particularly large ones, like the GLC, need to have public participation. The GLC does this to a tremendous extent. I do not want to take much more of your Lordships' time to dilate on that—I have taken long enough. The point about public participation is that it takes time. If you are going to allow people to discuss these issues and, finally, to come to an agreed decision, the decisions cannot be made quickly. It is also more expensive; and do not let us run away from that, either. In terms of its value to the community, it is worth both the cost and the delay.

The other point I want to make in terms of democracy is with regard to neighbourhood councils. We have two in London, one in North Kensington and the other in Hammersmith. This is something which needs to be pursued more. It is a valuable adjunct to bringing ordinary people into an activity concerning what is taking place in their area. In the GLC we have been experimenting with a couple of projects on what we call the mass attack on deprivation. We have picked two areas, one in Spitalfields and the other in North Islington, where the GLC, the local council, plus all the local voluntary organisations, are being brought together to see whether by co-operating and using collective influences something can be done about the deprivation in those areas. Those are additional suggestions. These last three matters are (shall I say?) pets of mine and therefore I thought I should not sit down without putting them to your Lordships.

My Lords, I apologise for having spoken for so long, but I thought I ought to make the case for remembering London, recognising London' s problems and making sure that London has the resources in order to deal with her problems. Always remember, my Lords, that London is the capital of this country.

5.50 p.m.

Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON

My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of joining everybody else in thanking my noble friend Lord Banks for having raised this subject for our discussion today. I think it follows admirably the discussion we had last Wednesday on the priorities for social services. My noble friend opened the debate in a very balanced manner, and concentrated largely on the structure of local government as we find it today. He was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and there was a great deal of agreement between the two noble Lords in what they said. There were two important aspects, over and above everything else, on which they agreed. One of these was that for the time being, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, there must be an abatement of the spate of legislation putting extra burdens on local authorities, and that the ultimate aim must be greater devolution and more power in the hands of the local authorities, as reconstituted.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, did not quite understand the Liberal attitude of mind on local authority regionalism and councils generally. May I remind him that we have always been quite consistent in what we have said. We were, at the time of the discussion on reorganisation, always in favour of regionalism with smaller district councils than the ones we have now under the umbrella of the regional authority. I think we were right, and all of us on these Benches believe we were right. From experience in a large number of districts of the feeling of remoteness of the elector, especially in the size of district that we have now since reorganisation, I think we were right and we should not dream, any more than I believe anyone else in this House would dream, of attempting to reorganise something yet again. The same arguments apply to the organisation of the Health Service in this country. We may all think there are too many tiers in that organisation as well, but both reorganisations were too traumatic an experience for anybody to attempt such a reorganisation yet again, not only for the staff involved but because of the momentary impact on services.

The noble Earl, Lord Longford, used the debate in a way which I welcome very much. He decided to talk on one subject; in other words, about one of the responsibilities of local government. I should like to do very much the same. The noble Earl chose the social services as the greatest priority handled by local government, and the one which he felt to be the most pressing to raise in this debate. I would challenge the noble Earl on that, and say that I believe the most important issue in the hands of local government is that of housing. I believe that many of the problems mentioned by the noble Earl concerning the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and deprived people in society, could be solved if housing conditions in all our communities were correct. Certainly, they would form much less of a problem. An enormous number of problems about which the noble Earl was telling us are created by bad environmental conditions; so I would say that, above all else, housing is the problem which local authorities need to concentrate upon.

We have spent an enormous amount of money on housing. I believe the subsidy bill is at least £2 billion, or £125 per year per family. Therefore it is right that we should stop and think and see, as both noble Lords, Lord Banks and Lord Sandford, said, whether we are getting value for money. Another interesting fact is that the housing expenditure rose in volume terms by 77 per cent. between 1973 and 1975, but in cost terms it rose by 119 per cent. I think we should increasingly direct our minds and the minds of local authorities to the question of whether these increases were inevitable or whether they were partly due to other factors, including the clash of interest between central Government and local government.

I believe that to an increasing extent the Government are using both local government and social policies as instruments of economic policy. In other words, I think the Government have been using a housing policy in order to assist in keeping down the wage demands of the nation. I believe we should look at this to see whether we have succeeded, because if it has been successful there is perhaps something to be said for that kind of policy. But I believe that we have not succeeded in containing wage inflation by the policies introduced by central Government.

The second question one must ask is: Why has the increase in public expenditure on housing been so enormous, together with the fall in income on the housing account? The fall in income from rents is an example of the Government's attempt to keep down costs; and this cost the local authorities of this country £90 million in 1974 and 1975 alone. That money has to be found from somewhere else. Then, equally because of inflation, there was a fall in the sale of council houses because of the high mortgage rate, together with an increase in the running cost covering repairs and maintenance, partly because of the failure of wage restraint—and in this regard I should be happy to argue that the £6 pay limit and its influence was not as steadying an influence as sometimes we have been led to believe.

Even if, with these enormous sums, the cost was right, it would be right only if we had satisfied or were in the process of satisfying the needs of the nation. Most people think that we do not have enough housing and that the housing lists are too long. On the other hand, we read in the Press estimates of bodies outside Government circles, claiming that we have an overall surplus of housing in the country. There was a leading article in The Times claiming just that. It can be argued whether or not we have enough, but what I think is generally agreed is that we do not have a balanced housing stock and we do not have a housing stock that has taken into account the demographic change in the population.

It seems to me, therefore, that local authorities must begin to look at the problem completely afresh. With the kind of economic difficulties the nation is facing, we cannot possibly go on without thinking of more economical ways of dealing with our housing problem. I think it is generally agreed that to rehabilitate or convert housing is much cheaper than to build new housing.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke about London and the cost of building here. I have some 1971 figures which show that a one-bedroom dwelling cost £4,500 to build, and rehabilitation of older accommodation of the same size cost only £1,100, while the conversion of a larger, older building cost £3,200. One does not have to be an economist to see in which direction we should move. There is an abundance of property available for conversion. Therefore, I am amazed at the Government's cut in the grant for home improvement from 1975 to 1976. We must get our priorities right, and it seems to me that, economically, it is sounder to concentrate on the improvement grant.

That has the secondary benefit, in many cases, of avoiding the terrible result of rebuilding; that is, the destruction of communities. We have to look at our cities and villages as living communities and use our resources as economically and as humanely as possible. Also, we have not made use of our existing housing in a balanced fashion, between large and small families. There is not enough incentive and opportunity for a single person, living in a reasonably priced house which is too large to maintain, to move into more suitable accommodation, where he or she would be happier and would free accommodation for young couples with families who are more in need of larger houses.

I have been talking about all these points for one reason. Every county council and district council must look in a thorough-going fashion at the kind of priorities they are to set themselves for the next five or 10 years. We talk all too glibly about the fact that we want more housing, but we have not even set out properly the criteria and objectives that will govern the kind of housing we hope to provide. I believe that a real investigation, area by area, into the housing supply of this nation is necessary, and when that is done the Consultative Council for Local Government Finance can make a contribution towards a solution of the financial problem. A two-fold inquiry is necessary, one medium-term and one longterm. If a medium-term inquiry was undertaken, it would give a certain amount of security and guarantee to the construction industry in regard to their commitment to local authority housing work. We all know the problems of the construction industry. We all know how in a boom period it is impossible to get anything built at a reasonable price, and how in a slump period it is equally impossible because the labour has disappeared. In the long run all these things must happen in regard to housing, but that is no reason why a district council or a county council should sit back and wait for instructions from central Government.

I was delighted that there were so many references to some of the Liberal councils in Great Britain, including Liverpool. Liverpool has really tackled the housing problem, because of the tremendous need that exists there, and has done so in two ways. It provides an adequate number of council houses every year, amounting to about 2,000. But the cost of council housing is enormously high today; even in Liverpool each house costs £ 13,000 and, with the interest charges over a period of 60 years, this amounts to an enormous sum and becomes a great burden on the ratepayer. If it is right for everyone to have a decent house, whether rented or not, then it is even more right that everyone who is capable of achieving home ownership should have his own home; so every encouragement should be given by local authorities and by Government to help people to own their own homes. This is what Liverpool has done, and the amazing fact is that it is cheaper both to the nation and to the house buyer for private people to own their houses. What is also important is that Liverpool council has used the derelict centre part of the city and is building new communities, which is one of the most heartening things I have read about for a long time.

There are other councils which have taken different steps. We all know that the Rent Act created housing problems, because of the landlord's fear of letting in case he could not get rid of a bad tenant. In Berkshire, Newbury district council has entered into agreements with landlords who have housing to let, with a guarantee that the house will be returned at a certain time. Action of that kind has an impact on the housing problem, but I still believe that we must as a nation undertake a proper housing analysis, area by area, district by district, so that we know we are spending our money in the right way and are getting value for it. Unless we do that, there will not be money left over, in present conditions of local government finance, for other services, such as social services. It seems inevitable that housing and education will have the first call on the finance available to local government, and the social services, about which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke, will inevitably suffer. Therefore, it is important that we get our housing priorities right, so that we do not waste money on building unwanted houses and build according to a proper plan which will, in the end, give this nation a decent home for everyone to live in.

That is a tremendous responsibility for local government to undertake but, in addition, it is all the time being given more new responsibilities by central Government. I should like to back all the speakers who have said that we must resist further instructions from central Government, so blocking the workings of district councils and county councils within the foreseeable future, because they will not function properly unless they are left alone to work in their own way towards a proper policy of priorities.

6.10 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks, very much for introducing this debate this afternoon, and I listened with great interest as he ranged so clearly over a wide variety of local government topics. Having said this, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will accept my apologies. Most unfortunately, I have to attend a meeting at which I should have been 10 minutes ago, and if I disappear after I have spoken I shall read with great care what both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, say at the conclusion of this debate.

I am glad that the subject has been introduced because I regard local government as important and interesting. It is disappointing that there have not been more speakers this afternoon. Nevertheless, we have been very fortunate that all of those who have spoken have spoken from great experience and with very great knowledge. I suspect that one of the reasons that some people have been unable to take part in the debate this afternoon is that she local government district elections are to take place tomorrow, coupled with the fact that for some authorities this is the beginning of the local government year. My noble friend Lord Ridley has asked me to say how sorry he is that for that reason he has been unable to take part in the debate today.

Local government is important for the influence that it has on our lives. Far too many people still do not realise how great its influence is, for it suffers from either had publicity or no publicity at all. When it is not considered extravagant or too mean, it is frequently considered dull. Perhaps one of the reasons for this lack of understanding is that despite the fact that local government has changed and developed—and developed very rapidly indeed since 1972—it is still a world peculiarly of its own. Those who have been in local government understand it. When they were in local government they had the comfortable knowledge that they could open their diary and see that on 3rd October they would be on the education committee, or the planning committee, or whatever it might be. But alas! once one translates oneself from local to central Government one discovers, as I have discovered today, that one is very lucky if one knows what one is doing tomorrow morning, let alone any further ahead than that.

Those who have been in local government understand it. Local government quite transcends Party political differences and appears to be strange to the outsider, not only because of the complexity of its functions and problems but because of the complexity of its finance and the complexity of the relationships between central and local government. Local government has another great characteristic: the loyalty of its members to their authorities. Now that I travel quite a lot around the country, I never cease to be impressed by the people who say to me, "Of course, we are a pioneering authority in this particular service". And w hat authority has not been a pioneering authority? Then one listens to sombody like the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who spoke this afternoon with such tremendous knowledge of his own authority and its problems and, indeed, of the problems of large towns.

Local government has come very much to terms with ways to deal with many of these problems. I believe that the new local government structure has produced management structures within local authorities which follow very much the lines of the Bains Report and has given to them at least a way of beginning to cope with the problems which they face. I should like to think that central Government had as much corporate planning as has local government. When I look at how central Government works, I am bound to say that I feel it could well read some of its own circulars on this matter to local government. However, at the end of the day local government is as good as the people in it, both elected members and officers, make it. I believe that one of the most important tasks facing anyone in public life is to encourage good people to come forward to take part in local government. For my part, I welcome the system of allowances to members which was introduced in 1972. This system has been quite unjustly criticised, but if for no other reason it has been of enormous benefit to women entering local government often when they could not face the extra expense that public life demanded, although they had no particular wish to earn a lot of money from it.

The fact is that local government is an extremely complex world and I sym-pathise with those who undertake its responsibilities. Many of your Lordships have referred already to the work that has been put on to local government. I believe that there have been something like a thousand Acts of Parliament since 1945 which are directly relevant to local government, and it would be impossible to name the Government circulars that have been issued about those Acts. To draw the distinction between what is mandatory, permissive and advisory is not always very easy. It is small wonder that some people in local government find that it is becoming an increasingly esoteric world that they have entered, one in which they find it very difficult to deal both with the complexity of the problems and the need to understand the importance of dealing with their electorate.

One of the important points that has been raised this afternoon is that of regional government. We do not know what the Government have in mind for devolution in England, but I am bound to say that my sympathies lie entirely with those who are opposed to yet another tier of government. I listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Amory had to say about the artificiality of these geographical areas. The fact remains that the larger they are the more remote they become from individuals. Anybody serving in regional government, if it were at all a powerful tier of local government, would have to make it virtually a full-time occupation. If he or she did this, they would be unable to do any other job. Therefore, they would be cutting themselves off from the communities that they were serving. However, the key question would be whether devolution would mean that the powers were to be taken from Westminster or whether they were to be taken from local government.

I have very great sympathy with what has been said about the difficulties for Wales. I believe that they are justified in feeling that powers are to be taken from local government and given to the Assembly. This will not help the question of the remoteness nowadays of government. It will not give to the Welsh people a greater feeling of participating in their own affairs. Our worst fears could be justified: that it would not necessarily mean that the powers would be taken from Westminster and given directly to Wales. Therefore, I think that we need—at any rate at this stage—to view with some suspicion the idea of yet another tier of government in an already over-governed society.

The next major issue which must remain at the centre of all our discussions is that of finance. My I ask the noble Baroness whether she can tell us when we can expect the report of the Layfield Committee to be published. I understand that it is with the Government now and I hope that we shall be able to see it quite soon. After all, last year we had a Bill which prevented revaluation on the grounds that the Layfield Committee was sitting and that the whole of the rating system was to be questioned. If, as is widely rumoured, the Layfield Committee are likely to say that some form of rating should be kept, we could well find ourselves in an increasingly anomalous position—and, of course, the rates are still with us. It is extremely important for local government that is should know where it is going on this matter of finance.

The dilemma of local government finance was very well illustrated by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He picked on one subject and said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that in the case of the social services it should be the object of the Government to make the recalcitrant authorities raise their standards to those of the best authorities.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, I may have given that impression. meant towards that level. If the noble Baroness will read what I have said, I think she will see that I did say that. At the same time, you could not raise them exactly to that level, but they should be raised in that direction. There should be a minimum which is not at present achieved.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, I apologise if I have misquoted the noble Earl. My point is that if, as many people would like, there should be similar standards of service in local government, one could not at the same time ask for local authority discretion on other services. Either you can have uniformity or you can have choice. You cannot have both. Therefore, we have to decide which, as a matter of principle, we prefer. I think it is far better to give to local authorities the discretion to do what they think is right rather than to try to insist upon a uniformity of service. After all, unless we have gone into all the details of the matter, we do not know why one authority has chosen to do one thing or another, but we do know that if we give discretion to local authorities we give them the opportunity to experiment.

If I might show the other side of this coin, if we take a good authority, such as the Kent County Council, and look, for example, at their special family placement project and what they have done to pioneer experiments in the fostering of difficult children, we will see that it is possible, by not having uniformity of service but giving discretion to local authorities, to provide a scheme which not only produces better care for very difficult children but in fact proves to be cheaper as well. It seems to me that this is a better line to take and the right one.

On finance, I would say that local government is put into a very difficult position when it is asked to produce so many services without any extra money and I hope—and this is the second question that I should like to ask—that when she replies, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will explain who is going to pay the extra £35 million on school dinners which arises from the Government Statement this afternoon. As I understand it, next September's 5p increase in school meals is no longer to be made. Does the £35 million fall as an extra charge to local authorities, and in particular to education committees? Does it come out of the £50 million that the Government have set aside, as I understand it, for extra expenses? In any event, has this matter been discussed with the local authority associations, or is it in fact simply an arrangement between the Government and the TUC without any consultation with the people who will actually have to pay it? I think nothing could illustrate better the dilemma of local government than when they are suddenly confronted with something like this, because at the end of the day they will have to pay the bill for the school dinners.

I think that our objective on local government finance should be getting value for money, and one of our objections, not only as a matter of principle, to the Community Land Act has been its excessive cost, both in terms of extra civil servants and, on the Government's own estimation, that it will still cost £300 million on the land account by 1980. All the prospects that were held out to us of enormous sums of money that were going to be made out of land speculation by local authorities prove, in the cold light of dawn, to have come to nothing. Nor do we believe that there is any point in adding to local authority burdens by increasing direct labour forces or indeed taking over many functions that are far better performed by private business, as was proposed under the West Midlands Metropolitan County Bill—now, I am glad to say, dropped from another place.

Surely the point of local government finance must be how we get the money to those who really need it. I very much sympathise with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, about helping the mentally handicapped, the homeless, the old, the young and the sick, and all those who need it. One of the ways we do it is by giving the money to those who really need it and not in indiscriminate subsidies. I listened with enormous interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said about housing. As she made so many of the points that I intended to make I will not repeat them, except to say that I agree with almost everything she said. I could only wish that her Party had said the same when the Local Government Finance Bill was going through this House in 1972. Nevertheless, I am very pleased that even at this hour so many of the principles which we have propounded over the years are in fact the same as those that the Liberals now agree with, and I hope that may continue.

The fact remains that the cost of housing is enormous. It is estimated that in 1978–1979 the cost of housing will be something like £1, 500 million a year more than it was said to be in 1973. If we look at the proportion of the cost of housing covered by rents, we discover that in 1971–72 rents contributed about 73 per cent. of the income towards local authority costs of housing. The figure is now 43 per cent. and at the end of the White Paper projections up to 1980 it will have risen to 50 per cent. In the meantime, the average council house rent as a percentage of income will have fallen from 7 per cent. to 5 per cent. At the same time, the average initial mortgage repayment as a percentage of income will have risen from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent.

I quote these figures only to show that if we are looking for savings in local government there is surely ample room for saving here. The important point about savings is that it is not to take something away from somebody; it is to give it to those who really need it. I think we need to take a good, hard, long look at housing so that we see that every family that needs a house gets one, and that we are not offering indiscriminate subsidies to those who are quite able to afford to stand on their own feet.

I was very struck by the figures that I saw in the Financial Times earlier this week as to the cost of a council house in London, which it is now said costs £20,000 to build. To service the interest and the management and maintenance cost comes to £2,900 per year and the local authority receives by way of rent £450, leaving £2,400 to be found from the ratepayer and the taxpayer. It may well be that it is essential for some. I am not saying that it is not, but I cannot believe that it is essential for all, and that is the crux of the argument.

I conclude where I began. I think local government is an extremely important subject. I believe it has often been maligned in the Press and misunderstood by those outside. It has a very difficult job to do and I believe it is doing it very well indeed. Above all, I believe it needs the support of all its friends, particularly at a time of economic crisis when above all we are going to want higher standards at a time when we have ever less money to provide them. It is not my purpose in any of the remarks that I have made, or that we have made from this side of the House, to criticise local government. In everything that we have said we aim to be constructive and, above all, to make quite sure that the very necessary services provided by local government go first to those who need them most.

6.28 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk)

My Lords, we had an interesting and strangely muted debate until the noble Baroness opposite stood up. I am extremely sorry that I shall be answering some of the points she made without her being here. It is much better to hit hard at somebody when they are in front of you than at the space which they occupied. The debate was initiated in a most reasonable manner by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, from the point of view of the elections, put his finger on the admirable timing of this debate and on the tremendous upsurge of interest that takes place around this time of the year. We personally also have an interest here, depending on where we live, because while we are still debarred from voting in General Elections we can at least, as Peers, vote in local elections.

A debate of this sort offers an opportunity to touch on an infinite variety of topics, ranging from issues of broad principle to items of local detail. Although we have had a fairly limited range of speakers in terms of numbers, nevertheless the topics that have been covered have been enormously wide-ranging and numerous. Noble Lords will bear with me, I hope, because they will not want me to delay them too long, so if I do not answer all the points made, or if I should even miss out some of the more important ones, I shall write to noble Lords. I shall read Hansard very carefully tomorrow to see that I have not left anything out by mistake.

My Lords, in the debate this afternoon, local government has been put on the analyst's couch, and I suspect that some people would not recognise themselves or their problems. But this is a time of stress for local authorities, for members and officers, and also for the local authority associations, which we should not forget, which act as important clearing banks of local authority opinion. Local authorities are still coping with the aftermath of the reorganisation which took effect two years ago. That reorganisation was strongly opposed by my Party, but we have to live with it, and I accept that it would be quite wrong to enter into another era of reorganisation at this time. It does not transform what is bad into what is good.

The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, referred to what was said, at the time of the introduction of the Act, about its effect on finance and staff. I agree to a large extent with all the points the noble Viscount made, with the exception of his comment on this Act. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the time said the Bill would have little direct effect on either overall local authority finance or expenditure, and:

Reorganisation of local government will, in the long run, enable staff to be more effectively and economically deployed". We have certainly seen the effect it has had on finance. A great many of the strictures obliquely made on the question of staffing, not only in the Chamber this afternoon, but generally outside, are partly due to the fact that although there are fewer authorities, they are bigger. This means that since some of the same people are responsible for a far greater proportion of the public living within their areas, the numbers of staff have risen, and also the amount that they are being paid.

Concern was expressed, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the consequences of the regional devolution proposals, particularly on Wales. I can say at this moment that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is currently having consultations with representatives of the Welsh local authorities. Although it would not be prudent of me to trespass further into these Welsh fields, the fact that these consultations are taking place, and that my right honourable friend is receiving deputations I hope will make them feel that action is being taken in this quarter.

As has been pointed out by ail noble Lords who have spoken, local authorities are under great pressures. These pressures come from contrary directions. Local authorities are under pressure to expand services, to provide a wider range of services, and higher standards. I can remember many years ago when I was a borough councillor myself, there was a tremendous difference in the services for which we were responsible, compared with the huge expansion of today. I am quite sure so many of the really horrendous things that are being highlighted today, such as the plight of battered babies and battered wives, are things which have not suddenly occurred, but which were hidden from us and were missed by those who could bring them to public and social attention. There is an increased awareness today. There is a great deal more research in all these spheres. Research reports very often implement and step up the pressures for action. We have seen a vast expansion in the social services, in transport, and in fact in the whole area which I like to feel is the raison d'etre of my Department; that is, trying to improve and enhance the quality of life.

These pressures have been continuously exerted by the public, by successive Governments, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, pointed out. These are the main reasons why local government expenditure and manpower have been increasing ever since the war. At the same time, local authorities are under pressure, through the current economic circumstances, to slow down or to halt expansion, to achieve a standstill in both spending and staff. This is a formidable task, and often appears to be an almost impossible one in a period when rising costs and rising wage levels bear so heavily on local authorities, especially as it means postponing the improvement of services which many authorities wish to achieve.

It is in this period of stress that I believe the difference in philosophy between the Government and those sitting on the Benches opposite shows itself with even sharper clarity. This was pointed out pungently by my noble friend Lord Longford. Our approach is certainly not to "knock" local government. Our approach is to work in partnership and co-operation in helping local authorities to maintain and improve services by efficient and good management, and, when it is economically possible, to expand services. Again, I believe there is a very great difference in approach and opinion, as my noble friend Long Longford also pointed out. It is one thing to want to expand services and to do whatever you can during a time of economic stress, but looking forward to a time when you will in fact be spending more money on those services; and it is quite another thing when one is saying, "Yes, there are certain things we should do", but not really wanting to look forward to a really fullhearted expansion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, I thought rather exposed this difference, as, indeed, has been done outside the Chamber, in the country, and in the various political broadcasts of the Tory Party. The word "selective" is used all the time. What on earth do they think is happening at the moment? Everybody is not getting a pay-out all the time. Those of us who, fortunately, are not in need of all these services, and particularly the social services and personal services, are not automatically getting them. They are selective. They are selected on the basis of people's need. This overall phrase which trips so easily off Tory tongues I find to be a cloak, a camouflage, a cloud of rationalisation, a fundamental dislike for the expansion of expenditure in these areas.

Apart from the rather more technical points on housing made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Robson of Kiddington and Lady Young, there was a very, very dead silence on what cuts should be made. Yet in another place, and also in propoganda leading up to the elections tomorrow, we hear cries about public expenditure of the Labour central Government and Labour authorities. It is quite impossible, however, to learn if there were to be cuts, where in fact the cuts should be made. I think it is about time, when people talk about this profligacy, that they should say what they want to do. Fortunately, a more reasonable attitude was taken this afternoon. Do they really want to cut down housing? Do they really want to cut down personal services, the social services? Do they really want education cuts? Do they want concessionary fares to old people to be cut? All these cost a great deal of money.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Baroness for a moment. I do not think my noble friend Lady Young or I suggested any cuts at all. I think it would be helpful if the noble Baroness would keep to the debate. What my noble friend said, and what I would have said if I had been dealing with the same topic, is that we like to see the expenditure going to those people who need it and not being wasted on people capable of standing on their own feet.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, this is exactly what I said myself, and all the noble Lord is doing is repeating what I call these generalisations. If all he is saying is that we have individuals from time to time and from place to place who are abusing the system, this applies to anything and everything everywhere, not just to local government or central Government. If the noble Lord is picking me up on the basis that I am dealing with a very fundamental point that is being discussed all the time, the question of too great expenditure and where the cuts should come, I am certainly not going to be put in my place by his saying that it is not relevant to the debate. The debate, as I understand it, is on a Motion dealing with local government in England and Wales today. We have had three speakers from the Opposition Front Bench, although the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, took himself to the second Bench to deliver his speech. When we have three speakers who presumably are putting Opposition policy, and they, either through lapse of memory or in order to keep the debate as cool as possible, do not use the sort of arguments which are being used all the time by them, and certainly by their colleagues in the Party to which they belong, and which represent the policy to which they subscribe, I still think I have a right to take this point up. If they wish to dissociate themselves from everything said by their colleagues in another place and outside, to say that they would not dream of having any cuts in anything at all, that they think the expenditure we have now is right, and that the local authorities should be left to work out their own priorities, even if some of the things they spend money on may seem slightly strange to them, that the local authorities must follow their own route and be at the mercy or receive the thanks of the electorate, then this is fine. But I am really not going to stand up and pretend that there are no forked tongues about, even if noble Lords feel they are not in this Chamber.

My Lords, to return to the theme of what I really want to talk about—the liaison between central and local government—we set up, as many noble Lords mentioned, the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance in May 1975. The Council consists of representatives of central Government and representatives of the local authority associations. Even in the first year of its existence it has shown what a valuable forum of consultation it is, with great future potential. I do not think my noble friend Lord Pitt needs to worry that we are not aware of the extraordinarily good start it has made and also of the great need for it to expand its activities and development in the future. Indeed, I would say that this is a landmark in the evolution of local government and does more solid good for the relations between central and local government than many of the volumes of verbiage which are poured out on the subject.

Through the Consultative Council local authorities are involved in the negotiation about the level of rate support grant at a much earlier stage than before, and from this year they will be brought into the public expenditure survey process, which really brings them right into the middle of the financial negotiation and discussion. The Council have also discussed ways of ensuring the right overall priorities in government spending and that the money available is used to the best possible effect. It is in this area, in this Council and through this exchange, that one hopes we shall get a movement towards a certain overall agreement on priorities, but at the same time local authorities retaining their own autonomy.

The local authority associations, through the Council, are fully committed to the objective deriving from the current economic climate; that is, there must be a standstill not only in expenditure but also in total manpower. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked whether there were any other exercises in this area which were promoting this very essential co-ordination. We have agreed on a joint exercise to watch and examine manpower in local government. This joint watch already shows a stabilisation of local government manpower. I think this was a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It is one example of co-operation between central and local government. Another is the joint manpower study which was recently launched to make sure that advice was available to local authorities on management decisions involving manpower.

Both employers and employees in local government have staunchly observed not only the current pay policy but also the Social Contract which preceded it. And this has been an enormously powerful contribution to the success of the present counter-inflation policy. I feel quite sure that we in the Government have very good reason to believe that the Government will have the full co-operation of local government and the local government associations in the next stage of the pay policy, the Statement on which was made this afternoon.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the experience of the Manchester University appointments board in relation to local government salaries. These salaries, it is claimed, are out of line with those paid for comparable work in the private sector. Though I would not wish to convey that the Government are unmindful of these criticisms, knocking the public service does seem, unfortunately, to be a favourite pastime in some quarters at the present time, although I am happy to say that this did not come forth today. As I have already mentioned, local government are competing for people in other work outside, in industry. As the areas have become bigger and the amount of responsibility greater, it is essential that people should be offered salaries which will both encourage them to come into local government and to stay there. It is true, as I think all noble Lords will agree, that we are still going through the teething stages of this reorganisation, and obviously again on the manpower side this also needs to be sorted out. But local government is a big business, responsible nationally for very important services and a very large slice of the economic cake.

Noble Lords have referred to the burden of rates, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke particularly of the London situation. It is true, of course, that the twin grim problems of inflation and tile difficulties that local authorities have experienced over achieving necessary reduction of high rate of expenditure have led to high rate increases. Last year, 1975–76, domestic rates increased by some 34 per cent., but this year the indications are that the domestic rate will increase by less than 10 per cent. and the increase in non-domestic rate will be even smaller, about 7 per cent., thanks to the fact that the Government, by keeping the domestic element constant in money terms, gave proportionately more relief to the commercial ratepayer.

I am quite aware that this figure of less than 10 per cent. is only an average, and there have been considerable swings around this so that some ratepayers have been faced with increases which are much higher. But there has been—and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, admitted this when he was speaking—bias in favour of certain authorities by way of the rate support grant. As he said, London, for example, came in that category. Incidentally, in this debate I cannot comment on unemployment in London, although the noble Lord asked me to, because I think he will agree that that is a subject for a different debate on a different occasion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred to Liverpool. Again, I do not want to take credit from the work done by Liberals in Liverpool, but nevertheless the rate in Liverpool has been kept down not entirely by the work of the Liberal administration but because in 1974–75 they were in receipt of over £43 million from central Government funds, and for 1975–76 that was increased by nearly £10 million; an increase of over 21 per cent. This is really what kept the rates down in Liverpool. To take some of these individual cases for comparison is a rather more intricate matter than it seems on the surface. Nevertheless, as many responsible local authority commentators have acknowledged, the major difficulties experienced in 1974–75 and 1975–76 in connection with rate increases have been eased by the Government' s success in their counter-inflation programme, and also by the willingness of local authorities to curb their expenditure.

The trouble with rates is that they have a bad name and everybody hates them when they have to pay them, which is an understandable reaction. But rates today represent no greater proportion of the income of the average household than they did before the war—and the rates we pay certainly do not vanish into some bottomless bureaucratic pocket; they are translated into services, houses, roads, amenities which we use and benefit from. But it has long been agreed that a good hard look at the local financial structure is required. Hence the advent of the Layfield Committee, which was set up by the Labour Government. I can now tell those several noble Lords who inquired that we hope to publish this very large report later this month.

One other point so far as rates are concerned. I would agree that they are an intolerable hardship to some people, but, by a considerable extension of the rate rebate scheme, essential relief has been given to those most in need. The take-up of the rebates, which has always been such an enormous and worrying problem, has, due to an effective recent publicity campaign, now become remarkably high—some 70 per cent. of eligible households—and the rate rebate scheme benefits 2½ million households, with a total of £90 million granted in 1974–75.

Value for money is certainly something which has been stressed during this debate, and it is what every ratepayer and every citizen rightly expects; but the current financial situation, I agree, makes the need for it even more vital. The first essential is that each authority should settle its own priorities. This means that resources may well have to be diverted from highly desirable programmes to preserve essential priority areas of spending. The Government set minimum standards of provision of services, but beyond these statutory levels it is for local authorities to decide their order of priorities. My noble friend Lord Longford raised the point of the physically handicapped and the mentally handicapped. I am afraid that the way in which it works is that the central Government have very clear views on priorities for public spending, and in the area about which he was talking, personal and social services and health, the Department of Health and Social Security has made proposals about these priorities in a document which was published in March, Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England, which is a Consultative Document which I expect several noble Lords have seen. It sets out national priorities for the whole range of health and personal social services in the context of the White Paper on Public Expenditure. It is a Consultative Document and the Department hopes that it will be the start of a constructive dialogue on priorities between central and local government. I have a feeling at the back of my head that statements have been made in another place about money possibly being made available for housing authorities to integrate people into the community. However, if my noble friend will allow me, I should like to have this thoroughly checked and I shall write to him about it.

On the other side of the picture, on housing for the disabled, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction made a Statement in the other place on 14th April when he reported on the results of the first twelve months of a special drive for housing for the disabled, and the response was encouraging. However, I am afraid there is no room for complacency. It would not be any good my pretending, or anybody else pretending, that economies in local authority services are not needed and that the effects will not be felt. Contemporary local authority accounting has to be harsh, and authorities have to streamline their operations with efficiency and economy and, above all, avoid waste—especially waste of manpower.

Nevertheless, they are running a wide range of important services: they are managing massive capital and current budgets with an annual expenditure of about £14,000 million; they employ about 2 million people; and do all of this with a high degree of expertise. Therefore, it would be wrong to give the impression that efficiency and value for money are not already the constant concern of most local authorities; for management and efficiency are primarily the responsibility of local authorities themselves. They employ their own staff; they arrange their own internal organisation, and they monitor their own performance. Indeed, the Government have no power, or even desire, to intervene in these matters. It is quite true that what is one authority's high priority might be seen by other people, and other authorities, as something very much lower down the list. Different circumstances make for different cases and, as I think has been said by several noble Lords, this is one of the prices that we pay for democracy.

With 450 major authorities it would be unrealistic to expect total social and financial perfection. Similar examples of where things have slipped up or gone wrong could be quoted in many big business organisations. In fact, we see the results daily. I think that it is unfair to expect more of management of local authorities—certainly at this stage when they are trying to work a new structure, and people are not perhaps yet used to working on a scale as big as this and are having to work themselves into it—and expect them to perform in a consistently perfectionist way, which we neither get nor expect from industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned the need for a register of pecuniary interests, as recommended in the Redcliffe-Maud Report. These matters are being considered now by the Royal Commission on the standards of conduct in public life under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon. When he reports, as I understand from him he hopes to do soon, the Government will consider the matter. However, I understand that voluntarily a number of authorities have their own registers, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

I come to the question of housing, on which a great deal has been said, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to whom, to avoid delaying your Lordships, I will write. Housing is, of course, a major responsibility, particularly of the metropolitan and non-metropolitan district councils. There are certain things which none of us finds particularly satisfactory; I do not think that anyone could be satisfied with any housing situation unless everybody who needs a home has one. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, spoke of the numbers—whether there were more houses than people needing them—and here the big problem is that one can have houses in the wrong places for those who need them. It is a question of finding the right balance and taking demographic changes more directly into account, and these particular themes were included in Circular 24/75, Housing Needs and Actions, which was issued last year.

I am entirely in agreement with the stress that has been placed on rehabilitation because it is economic, it makes use of houses that are there and, from my own conservation point of view, lone is able to add to the housing stock buildings which one would like to keep for their historic and aesthetic value. We must, nevertheless, have a policy which continues to add urgently to both the stock of new and rehabilitated houses. So far as rehabilitation is concerned, an increase on the original expenditure has been made available for 1976–77, with additional resources, as part of the measures to relieve unemployment. In 1974, when we returned to power, we had to act urgently. Housing was in a terrible state. Immediately an increase in the public expenditure provision for housing was made and that is now yielding results. In 1974 public housing starts were 30 per cent. up on the previous years, and in 1975 they improved by a further 19 per cent. Last year the total number of houses built in the public and private sectors was 312, 000, which speaks for itself.

On the question of the sale of council houses, this subject was touched on and was, I think, inherent in what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said when she was making various criticisms of the present housing policy. There are, of course, circumstances in which authorities can sensibly sell council houses to sitting tenants, but many people who seem to support the idea of selling them in an extremely wholesale way ignore the fact that council houses have been provided to meet the housing need as a whole and not just for the benefit of the individual tenants who are living in them at the present time. Thus, it is the whole local housing situation which must be looked at before a view is taken on whether or not a housing policy makes sense. When one looked at the Conservative Party political broadcast last night one would not have thought that there was anybody in need of rented accommodation and that everybody was willing and able to buy his own home. That is quite untrue and socially inequitable.

Regarding some of the other points made on housing by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, my Department is undertaking a housing finance review which will cover many of the points that have arisen on the financial side—rents and so on—but I will not delay the House by going into that now. I certainly do not need to be persuaded of the wretchedness of homelessness and the fearful consequences on the family and the individual, a subject that is rightly raised constantly in this House. The increase in house building which we are achieving will help the situation, but I readily admit that that is not enough in itself.

My noble friend Lord Longford will be glad to hear that the Government are completely committed to introduce legislation, as soon as that is legislatively possible, to place the statutory responsibility for the accommodation of the homeless on housing authorities. I can only say, for what it is worth, that I am doing everything I can to see that it is brought forward, as he asked, in the next Session, but I cannot speak on behalf of the Lord President of the Council or the Cabinet. I assure him that my Department is well aware of the need for this as a high priority in the list of Government legislation across the board. This would, of course, make housing and social sense, and I am sure that local authorities will approach it with energy and compassion.

On the question of planning, the use of land, a matter to which Lord Sandys referred, I am aware of Dr. Coleman's views. I am also concerned about the conclusions to which she came in her article in the Sunday Times. The noble Lord will understand that it is difficult for me to comment in detail when we have not had an opportunity to study the data on which the observations were based. I will only say that I dread to contemplate the state we would be in if we did not have the planning controls we have. They compare very favourably with other countries which have no planning legislation, one of which I visited recently. That does not mean that ours is perfect and does not need improving. I also assure him that the local authorities are well aware of the need to minimise encroachment on good agricultural land and to curtail their ribbon development. Lord Sandys will be aware of one problem and that is the great cost of the infrastructure of filling in and building in urban areas.

On what is becoming well-trodden ground, the Community Land Bill, I will not say more. I seem to have said a good deal about it in the last few months. It seems that we shall never get agreement on that between noble Lords on the Benches opposite and my noble friend. I will only say that it is not a burden on the rates and that because of fits concentration on positive planning it should, given a chance, a chance which it needs, improve planning, the economy and the whole areas within which we have been discussing all the needs of local authorities.

I was pleased to see the stress that was given by many noble Lords—Lord Banks, Lord Sandys and Lord Sandford, among them—to the whole question of communications, a subject which I feel very strongly is tremendously important. It is even more important now than it ever was because of the increased size of authorities and the far greater need to make positive efforts to get channels of communication between councillors and constituents, councillors and officers, officers and members of the public—all the way through. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a circular to local authorities in April of last year in which he stressed the need for local government to take positive action to ensure the maximum degree of openness in the conduct of public business. This of course leaves a very great area of manoeuvre because the statutory provisions set are the minimum, and it is up to the local authorities themselves to extend them.

The relationship which exists between local councils and the Press is, I believe, healthy. It is improving and certainly a healthy democracy depends on this relationship being maintained and improved. Some of the experiments which were mentioned, such as question time, are extremely interesting. There is also the question of participation—that people should participate and voice their views—and in practical terms there are such matters as the dual use of local authority buildings. This is being looked into and in fact carried out by many local authorities, and this is a way of both public participation and a sensible use of resources.

The part of the voluntary worker and the voluntary effort which enriches all other effort—it cannot be a substitute for the skilled work that we now require and demand in our social services—is of enormous benefit. I should hate, both for the sake of the recipients of that work and for the sake of the people who are doing it, to see the day when voluntary work in this country withered away. I believe that it would take something away from them.

Finally, what we have to avoid—and I believe that we are all in agreement on this—is confrontation between central and local government. We must develop a full partnership based on consultation and a proper understanding of each other' s interests and problems. Apart from the very strong political differences that divide us, I feel that the need for understanding and consultation is something which has been accepted by all sides of the House. It has made this debate an extremely useful one.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Banks, would bear with me if I raised one point with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, before she sits down. She did not seem to want to be interrupted again in the middle of her speech, so I have left it until now. I agree with her that there are political differences between us, but it is just as well to analyse them and understand precisely what they are. The noble Baroness seemed to have the impression that my noble friends and I had been advocating cuts in local government expenditure. That is quite unrealistic and it would be quite irresponsible to do such a thing, and none of us did. However, if she has a record of such a statement being made by any of my honourable or right honourable friends in Parliament on which she bases her assumption, perhaps she will let me know and I shall know what she is talking about.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether he feels that he is in order? He is raising a question following a speech, but he appears to be making another speech.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am not really making another speech. I am just dealing with a point which I began to raise in the middle of the speech of the noble Baroness. She did not seem to want me to pursue it then.

The Earl of LONGFORD

My Lords, I believe this to be quite out of order. My opinion is worth no more than anyone else' s, but the noble Lord feels that he was shut out when my noble friend was speaking and therefore feels entitled to "deal with the point", as he calls it. I submit with the utmost deference that that is quite out of order.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, it would be out of order if I were making a tremendous speech, but it is no more than common practice just to raise a minor point before a noble Lord sits down at the end of a speech. That is all I am seeking to do. Both Parties are agreed that we want to cut out waste. The difference between us is that we regard it as waste to offer indiscriminate subsidies to everybody by way of housing subsidies, whereas the Party of the noble Baroness does not. That is the only difference between us.

Baroness BIRK

My Lords, I do not propose to answer because I consider that I answered the point before. Although I feel that one should be generous on these occasions, I must agree with my noble friend Lord Longford because, after the first interruption, I again explained exactly what I meant. There is therefore no point in my repeating it again. The noble Lord can read it in Hansard tomorrow.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, all I want is for the noble Baroness to write to me if she has these particular statements in mind.

7 13 p.m.

Lord BANKS

My Lords, we have this afternoon had a very useful and interesting debate. Of course I am greatly tempted to I take up many of the points which have been raised and to expand on them at length, but this would not be the moment to do so. However, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and to thank them most sincerely. They have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, spoken with a wealth of experience. I should like particularly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her comprehensive reply on behalf of the Government.

I am left at the end of the debate with a feeling that we shall in the near future be returning to at least four of the themes which we have been discussing this afternoon. One is the theme of structure and, while I believe that we all agree that any immediate reorganisation would be unfortunate, I nevertheless share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that in due course there will be some modification. I believe that it will be a modification to accommodate regionalism.

Secondly, I believe that we shall return to the whole subject of the balance of tasks between central and local government, the possibilities of decentralisation and the possibilities of co-operation. I am sure that we shall have to develop further the question of participation which I mentioned in my remarks at the beginning and to which other noble Lords have referred. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also dealt with this towards the conclusion of her speech. Finally, I have no doubt that we shall very soon be plunged into a discussion of local government finance. So we shall be returning to all these themes before very long. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.