§ 11.12 a.m.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimates they have made of the additional cost of providing the existing level of trading standards service in the areas of the six metropolitan county councils under the recent proposals for abolishing those authorities.
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, the Government believe that the existing level of trading standards service can be provided by the district councils in the six metropolitan areas at no additional cost. It will be for the districts to decide on the future level of service and the most effective and efficient means of provision.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonBut, my Lords, does not the Minister appreciate that his proposals to scatter the trading standards service would be looked upon as an act of supreme folly? When one looks at the White Paper and bears in mind that a recommendation in it calls for the need to ensure consistent standards of enforcement, why does the Minister believe that creating more authorities rather than less will lead to a consistent enforcement of standards? Does the Minister recall that in 1974, when reorganisation took place, there were 250 weights and measures authorities and the total was reduced to 86,and does he agree that in the intervening period those who advocated larger organisations providing a comprehensive range of services have been fully vindicated?
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, my answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, no. In answer to the second part I would say that he and your Lordships will appreciate that the problems regarding trading standards are, and will continue to be, for the district councils to handle. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord three examples: one of the district councils within the area of one of the existing six metropolitan county councils which we are discussing might agree to provide the service on behalf of the others; or a consortium could be formed among the district councils for the purpose; or a neighbouring shire 392 county might be asked to provide the service for one or more adjoining districts. I am sure that the noble Lord and your Lordships will agree that different arrangements would be appropriate for different areas.
With regard to the third part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. my reply is, no, I would not necessarily agree.
§ Lord DrumalbynMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will invite his noble friend to take steps to cross-check with the metropolitan county councils on the expectation that he has expressed that there would be no extra cost? Is he aware that, according to information that I have received, an estimate has been made by at least one of the metropolitan county councils that the cost would be doubled?
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, with regard to the first point raised by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. certainly I shall pass on his very valuable comments to my noble friend. I am very interested in the second point put forward by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I am afraid that I was not aware of it, and perhaps I may write to him.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, does not the noble Lord's answer to the first supplementary question indicate that the Government have not at all thought out this matter, but, having made a political decision, are now trying to find arguments to justify it?
§ Lord LyellNo, my Lords.
§ Lord Dean of BeswickMy Lords,will the Minister explain why,as he said in reply to a supplementary question, he expects that one metropolitan district might provide the service on behalf of another, bearing in mind the jealousy that already exists among the various authorities?
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, I trust that I stressed that I hoped it would be a shire county, not a metropolitan county, though the noble Lord has asked about metropolitan counties. I stressed that one shire county might provide a solution on behalf of the others. I am sorry that I have forgotten what was the noble Lord's second point, and I wonder whether he will briefly remind me of it.
§ Lord Dean of BeswickMy Lords, does the noble Lord really expect one local authority to allow another authority to act on its behalf, bearing in mind the jealousy that already exists among local authorities?
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is keen on a hyposthesis as to what might happen.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonMy Lords, as an antithesis to the hypothesis will the Minister take very careful note of a very respectable body, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration? Has the Minister seen the recent report by the institute which points out the following comparison among three different categories of authorities which provide trading standards service? For instance, the cost of service per 393 head per annum in metropolitan county councils is 89.4 pence; in shire counties it is 93.5 pence; and in London boroughs it is 169.5 pence. If the Government are looking for savings, surely in this particular service, if not in others, it is demonstrated that bigness certainly provides efficiency which the Government are seeking? Why persist in abolishing a service which is efficient, desired, and successful?
§ Lord LyellMy Lords, there is no need to abolish this particular service. I would stress to the noble Lord that the service will continue. The noble Lord mentioned the London boroughs, but they are not referred to in the Question. Certainly, in regard to the figures that he has quoted, there is not much difference between 93 pence and 89 pence.