HL Deb 08 March 1982 vol 428 cc3-5

2.41 p.m.

Lord Ellenborough

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the rate of reduction in local government staff numbers to meet the need for all possible economies.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment: (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, the Government believe that, as is implied in the expenditure targets that they have set local authorities, there is scope overall for an increased rate of reduction in local authority manpower which can be achieved by greater economy and efficiency in the provision of services and in administration.

Lord Ellenbourgh

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, and noting his belief that there is further scope for economies, may I ask whether my noble friend agrees that unless high-spending local authorities do make further staff reductions, especially in non-essential projects, inevitably rates will continue to rise, which will mean that more businesses will be forced to close down and unemployment will rise further? In particular, may I ask my noble friend whether one way of reducing staff costs in local government would be for many more councils to follow the encouraging lead of such councils as Southend and Wandsworth in putting some services out to contract in the private sector? Will my noble friend do all he can to encourage this trend?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend on his first remarks. As for the second part of his question, I agree that there is without doubt great opportunity here if local government will look at this matter objectively, and will simply compare and obtain competitive quotations. I entirely agree that there is much scope.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is because of his experience and background—that the service provided by British local government is truly remarkable, much of it rarely realised? The work of local authorities and local councils is often the butt of newspapers and so on. Does the noble Lord not agree that the present Government seem to be obsessed with two words: making somebody redundant, giving him the sack—and putting him on the dole? Does he not also agree that local authorities give a great deal of encouragement, contracts and support to private industries, and that this provides a way for both sides of industry, public and private, to work together in harmony?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, it really is difficult to respond to a speech made in the form of a question, although I appreciate the point the noble Lord makes. I think one has to recognise that this whole debate is about obtaining value for money. This is what concerns people. The level of services provided is in many cases of a good standard; there is no argument about that. The question is whether all the services can be afforded in the way in which they are now provided. Are they being provided in the most efficient way? That was the thrust of my noble friend's point, which I think was a very fair one and ought properly to be made.

Lord Alexander of Potterhill

My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that, having regard to the relationship between the targets set and the achievement in reaching those targets, local government is very much more successful than central Government? Would he not agree that the point of the Question would be more appropriately addressed to central Government than to local government?

Lord Bellwin

No, my Lords, I would not agree at all. There is no way of making comparison; we are not comparing like with like. Local government does not have to deal with national matters such as defence. The only fair way in which one might draw comparison is by looking at the reduction in manpower since this Government came into office and since local government started to react to the Government's request. The numbers show that the reduction by central Government in their staffing is 7.1 per cent. while the reduction by local government is 4.1 per cent.

Baroness Gaitskell

My Lords, is not this question of reduction of personnel as a way of curing unemployment simply adding to unemployment?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, the fact is that if there is either inefficiency or over-manning—and nobody that I know in local government denies that there is much of that—people are simply paying for something that they are not getting. The long-term effect of that is what we are seeing today; people are saying that enough is enough and they will not stand for it. That has a disadvantageous effect on the private sector, who at the end of the day have to provide the real jobs and the real wealth that produces the money for all the other employment.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, is it not a fact that we are seeing streets remaining uncleaned and services that we should have in a civilised community being reduced? Would the noble Lord make absolutely clear that there are no staff reductions when absolutely essential services are required?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I would have thought that any authority really concerned about the streets being cleaned and the need to make reductions should go and look at places which have taken on the services of the private sector, like Southend, and see the improvement in standards there for a dramatic decrease in cost.