HL Deb 30 June 1994 vol 556 cc867-72

3.32 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, before the House agrees the Motion I wish to raise a matter of importance in relation to the Bill and upon which we believe the House is entitled to a full explanation from the Government. I informed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate yesterday of my intention to raise the matter today.

We want to know why the Welsh Office failed to issue before 16th June—a critical date because that is the date when the Bill was given its Third Reading in another place—the document entitled Consultation Paper on Proposed Arrangements for Costs of Local Government Reorganisation in Wales. The Government repeatedly enunciated one of the main objects of Welsh local government reform as being to ensure improved value for money in the provision of services. The consultation document is therefore very relevant. It contains information which could be relevant to whether or not new amendments should have been tabled in another place or whether relevant undertakings should have been sought from Welsh Office Ministers there.

The document contains indications that the Welsh local authorities' share of the costs of the transitional arrangements is likely to be much higher than the authorities were led to believe would be the case. It also contains other relevant material such as the suggestion that the cost of financing pensions may have to be borne by increasing the contributions of employers and employees in Wales.

The contents of the consultation paper were not known to the Members of another place on 16th June when the Bill was given its Third Reading. All that gives grave cause for suspicion that the publication of the document was delayed in order to deny Members of another place relevant information before the Third Reading debate. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to tell the House how the Welsh Office justifies or explains the delay in publication of a document of that kind. Further, can the noble and learned Lord allay the fears of local authorities that their share of the transitional costs of reorganisation may well be greater than they were led to believe was the case?

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I support my noble friend; we should be grateful to him for raising this important point. A document of such importance deserves careful scrutiny in advance of the final passage of a Bill of this kind. The other place was given an inadequate opportunity to study it. I cannot understand why the Welsh Office or the Government generally failed to give Parliament that opportunity. We must be told why the matter was dealt with so inadequately.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, from these Benches our view is that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raises a point of substance. As the Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House, the Welsh Office must have known that there would be no chance of discussing in this Chamber matters contained in the document published on 16th June. The point raised is therefore one of real substance in regard to procedures to be followed when a Bill of this kind is introduced into your Lordships' House. The other place, which carries the prime responsibility, had no opportunity of considering the impingement of the contents of the document on the Bill and deciding its reaction. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, apprised of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was to raise this matter, has an important duty to discharge in explaining the situation.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised this matter with me yesterday. The consultation paper to which he refers is dated 15th June and concerns arrangements for the cost of local government reorganisation in Wales. It is a consultation paper, and to be a proper consultation paper it had to put forward adequate information in relation to the matters upon which consultation was to take place. Up until 14th June the proposals for compensation for redundancy in connection with this matter had not been determined. That was for the Department of the Environment. On 14th June the Department of the Environment issued a letter setting out the proposals in relation to compensation for redundancy on which representations are to be made by 13th July. Once those proposals were available it was then possible for the first time to complete the consultation paper.

Noble Lords will have seen, for example, in paragraph 5.4 of the Welsh Office consultation paper reference made to the fact that on 14th June the Government announced their proposals for the severance scheme upon reorganisation. Until those proposals were made available it would not have been possible to issue any meaningful document for consultation. There would have been, in effect, a large hole in the middle of any consultation document on the costs of the reorganisation. For that reason, therefore, as soon as the compensation proposals were available the document was issued on the following day. That is what determined the date upon which it was actually issued.

Of course, it is only a consultation paper. Noble Lords will have seen that there is now to be a period of consultation with comments submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by 16th August. The final form of the package will be determined by my right honourable friend in the light of the representations made.

As to the question of the share of the costs, at no time previously had any firm indication been given to local authorities as to who should take responsibility for exactly what. Quite deliberately, no undertakings had been given. Therefore, if the local authorities had an impression that the arrangements would be somewhat different, it was not one based on any representations made by the Welsh Office—because, for the very reasons I have given, it was not possible for that to be done earlier. Those are the reasons why the document was issued when it was.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised this issue it was not entirely clear to me what its import was. It now appears from the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that this is a very important issue for the internal workings of government and in particular for the statutory responsibility and position of the Welsh Office. Do I understand from the noble and learned Lord who speaks for the Welsh Office on these matters that, because of a delay on the part of the Department of the Environment in preparing the relevant information, it was not possible for another place to be aware of the redundancy implications of a Bill presented to this House by the Government—presented by the Welsh Office? Is that not an indication of the failure of government departments to collaborate? Is it not time therefore that the Welsh Office led the Department of the Environment by the nose in these matters? Where there is legislation relevant to Wales which has an effect on the livelihood of our people involved in local government and information is not available in a timely way so that it can be debated by another place, the Welsh Office should tell the Department of the Environment where to get off.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord says that the consultation will be completed in mid-August. What action will the Government take following that? Parliament will, it is to be hoped, be in recess at that time. Will a document be published and will a statement be made to both Houses in order to enable Members in another place and in this House to pursue the matter, to question the Government, and to satisfy themselves that the result is a satisfactory one?

Baroness White

My Lords, can the Lord Advocate explain why it has taken so long to make these proposed arrangements? We were discussing the Bill in this House in the last week of February and the first week in March. Why were the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment not getting on and making sure that at least those in another place representing Welsh constituencies had an opportunity of knowing in reasonable time the Government's intentions? This kind of situation causes a great deal of indignation.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I wish to approach the question in a slightly different way. We have two major Bills going through Parliament at the moment: the Local Government (Wales) Bill and the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. The Local Government (Wales) Bill is further along the road than the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. In the process of deliberating on those Bills the cost of the reorganisation of local government is a significant item of information which Parliament needs to take into account.

From what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said today it appears that the determination of a major element of cost has been made by the Government only after the major stages in this House and in another place of the Local Government (Wales) Bill have been completed. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that we had a debate only the other day about the cost of the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. The Government refused to accept an amendment that called for the Treasury to identify costs and report them to Parliament. During that debate a range of cost estimates were made. Are we to understand that the situation that we now see with the Local Government (Wales) Bill is likely to occur with the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and that after deliberation by Parliament the Government will come up with firm costs and then go through a consultation process as to how those costs are to be allocated between central and local government? We are talking about a totality of costs that will have to be borne by the public purse. It is only sensible that Parliament, in determining its view on these Bills, should have before it the costs that will have to be borne by the public purse either centrally or locally prior to making very significant decisions.

I have a question which the noble and learned Lord may not be able to answer at this stage. What constitutional mechanism does Parliament have to reconsider the Local Government (Wales) Bill in the light of this cost determination and what steps will the Government take to ensure that Parliament's deliberations on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill are arranged in such a way that the costs of local government reorganisation in Scotland are in front of Parliament prior to significant deliberations on that Bill?

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, in general terms, as your Lordships know, it has been the position of the Government throughout the Bill's progress that it was not possible and never would be possible to predict precisely what the cost of the local government reorganisation would be as it would depend to a great extent on the decisions taken ultimately by the new authorities, for example, as to whether they require or desire new accommodation and so on. We have said that all along. Although there were estimates in the Touche Ross. report, referred to on several occasions in your Lordships' House, we have said that we are not in a position to say exactly what the cost will be. So in general terms the matter has been debated.

As regards this particular issue the question of compensation for redundancy was a matter on which the Department of the Environment was, so to speak, in the lead. It was the department dealing with the matter. Since local government was being reorganised not only in Wales, but also in England and Scotland, it was necessary that the proposals should be ones applying not only in the Principality but also in England and Scotland so as to achieve equality throughout Great Britain among all those affected. It is for that reason that the proposals have taken some time to work out.

We have debated these issues on a number of occasions. They are matters of great importance to the people concerned. For that reason they have been the subject of representation and consideration over a considerable period of time. Had they been rushed out earlier I have no doubt that there would have been criticism to the effect that not enough time had been taken to consider them. As it happens, it did take a considerable amount of time. But the proposals are now published. They are for consideration first by the local authorities and in due course by the Secretary of State in the light of representations which will be made to him.

Eventually, the Secretary of State's determination of these matters will form part of the 1995–96 expenditure settlements for local government in the normal way. That will be reflected in the figures. There will be the usual kind of scrutiny applying to proposals in relation to local government expenditure. Therefore, in that respect the position will be exactly the same as that for other local government expenditure proposals, subject to the control which Parliament has in respect of them. I believe that the matter has been dealt with appropriately, and that your Lordships should accept that.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for replying to the two specific questions I addressed to him. As to the first question, his answer merely illustrates once again that the Welsh Office, in relationship to a London-based department, stands as a very junior partner. We have been told by Ministers that this is a Bill designed to meet Welsh circumstances: it would be "a Welsh Bill". We fail to see why it is necessary for the Welsh Office to be so dependent on guidance, steering, initiative and leadership from the Department of the Environment.

As regards the noble and learned Lords's reply to my second question, I never alleged that there had been an undertaking given by the Government that the costs of reorganisation would be at a certain figure. I never made that allegation: we would not expect the Government to give such an undertaking. However, the local authorities will say that in discussions with Ministers and officials they were led to believe that their share of the costs would be at a certain ratio but that they now understand from the document that it is likely to be very much higher. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has not denied that.

If it transpires that the costs are higher than anticipated, can the noble and learned Lord say whether at the end of the day those additional costs will be borne by the Welsh authorities or by central government?

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, one can see from the document which parts will be borne by whom. The question as regards what the final figures will be. as I say, depends on decisions taken by the local authorities. Therefore, to some extent the final figures depend on their actions. In those circumstances I cannot say other than that the amount they will have to bear can be calculated by reference to the document in relation to what, at the end of the day, the final figures turn out to be. The proportion they will bear is seen from the document.

On Question, Motion agreed to.