Greater London Council Powers (Hansard, 17 January 1983)

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)
My Lords, the structure of local government and its continued application to present day needs is something that the Government must always have in mind. We are ready to consider any views that may be put to us, but at present we have no plans for change.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that not particularly revealing reply, and most warmly congratulating him on his extremely well deserved promotion—which I think has given pleasure in all quarters of the House—may I ask him whether he cannot at least give a little hope to the ratepayers of Greater London that they are not indefinitely going to have to find ever-increasing sums of money to finance this extravagant pantomime across the river?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the point that my noble friend had made, but I feel I can only say again that the Government are very willing to receive any suggestions, views, thoughts and ideas on this subject that anyone may care to bring to us.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, would the noble Lord accept from these Benches that we fully support the congratulations extended to him on his promotion? Would he not also agree that if a change in the administration of Greater London was to be considered, it would be appalling if this were dealt with on the basis of emotion and political prejudice without the substance of a detailed, full and comprehensive inquiry? Would he not also agree that the administration of transport in Greater London would require an overall body accountable to local government, and not members appointed by the Secretary of State, as is made in one proposal?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I would certainly agree that any propositions put forward should be 1180 considered entirely on their merits. That is the only basis on which this Government would be willing to consider anything. As for transport, I really do not think that there is any point in my speculating today on the different methods that there may be of running the transport services in London.

§ Lord Stewart of Fulham
My Lords, while adding my congratulations to the Minister, may I ask him whether he recollects that the old London County Council was destroyed because the Labour Party kept winning the elections and that the GLC was put in its place in the hope that it would be a Tory body? Since that hope has not been fulfilled, it is now proposed to abolish the GLC. Would the Minister not agree that we really cannot have London government turned upside down every time the Tory Party is disappointed in the elections?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, from those remarks I am not sure whether the noble Lord is himself suggesting that the GLC should be abolished. I shall note carefully what he has said. I really do not think that his observation, although very amusing, contributes too much to the particular problem that we are considering.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord and ask him whether he is aware that many of us fully acknowledge his considerable knowledge of local government affairs but hope that he, for one, will not take the view that you simply become "anti" a particular local authority because you do not like its politics? Is he further aware that when the Conservative Government abolished the LCC they also abolished two tiers of most efficient government, the 28 London boroughs and the LCC? If, as the noble Lord has said, he is taking advice on this matter, will he consider that perhaps the restoration of the 28 London boroughs and the LCC would make a massive improvement to the current set-up?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I am not sure that I am able at this moment to enter into a debate or dissertation upon the whole principle. I do not think that really is what the Question calls for; but clearly there is much interest in the question, and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising it. I hope that my answers have at least added something to the matter.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, to what extent have we to believe the Minister's assertion that the Government are now prepared to listen to advice on local government in Greater London, when the noble Lord's predecessors (including Sir Keith Joseph, then Minister of Housing and Local Government) disregarded the excellent advice that we were given by the Royal Commission?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says but I do not think that I can add very much to the Answer to the fundamental Question as put in the first place.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, sad though the present state of 1181 affairs is for central London ratepayers, the great mass of central London rates is paid by industry and that the present effect of what is going on is driving industry out of central London in ever-increasing amounts?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising a point which I have made in your Lordships' House on many occasions in the past. I entirely agree with what he says about the great danger of high rates and, not least, those imposed by way of a precept through anybody, not least the GLC.

§ Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone
My Lords, in any arrangements that are made for the devolution of powers to the London Boroughs Association will my noble friend consider that this is not an executive body and, in the past, has not been able to agree among its members on action in the overall interests of Greater London, due to the fact that what suits one borough does not suit another?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making a point. With his great experience and past in the London local government scene, whatever he says has to be followed carefully. Of course, there is much merit in the point that he makes.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what my noble friend Lord Stewart said, although it had the additional advantage of being amusing, was entirely and exactly accurate? The fact of the matter is that the Conservative Party cannot tolerate any Greater London government which is not of its own political colour. That is the object behind this Question.

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, it would be only proper, in that I have been trying to answer this Question in an absolutely even-handed manner, if I were to say that to deny that there is a great depth of feeling among many people in London at some of the actions of the current GLC would be to do less than justice to the real concern which exists; and the Question which has been put is a very proper one.

§ Lord Leatherland
My Lords, am I correct in thinking that this Question suggests that the transport in London should be nationalised? If that be so, what party disciplinary action is going to be taken against the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for ratting on party policy?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I do not think that the question needs an answer; I think it answers itself.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, arising out of the previous question, is my noble friend aware that some years back London Transport was answerable to the Minister of Transport, and in the case certainly of one former Minister of Transport it was most admirably administered?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I would have to agree with my noble friend.