HC Deb 18 December 1986 vol 107 cc678-80W
Mr. Harrison

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many metropolitan district authorities have applied in the abolished metropolitan county council areas for the former county headquarters and county hall to be transferred to them; and how many such requests have been granted.

Mr. Chope

One metropolitan district council has applied for the freehold of the former county headquarters to be transferred to it at nil cost. The residuary body for the area concerned will be marketing the building in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Harrison

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many chairmen of residuary bodies for the abolished metropolitan county councils hold other official positions on other Government bodies; what are their respective salaries or emoluments; and if he will identify their positions on such bodies.

Mr. Chope

Mr. T. McDonald, OBE, currently receives £16,544 per annum as chairman of the West Yorkshire Residuary Body. He is also chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside and East Midlands Regional Industrial Development Board. This is an unpaid position. Mr. J. P. B. Hadfield, JP, currently receives £18,198 per annum as chairman of the Greater Manchester Residuary Body. He has accepted an invitation from my right hon. Friend to serve as chairman of the Trafford Park Development Corporation, which, subject to approval of both Houses, is to be established shortly. The terms of his appointment, including remuneration, have not yet been finalised.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies are currently being undertaken by his Department in connection with the reorganisation of local government.

Dr. Boyson

No special studies are being undertaken but proposals under part IV of the Local Government Act 1972 from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England are regularly considered. We also take note of reports and studies sent in by a variety of organisations.

Mr. Tony Banks

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to establish further non-departmental public bodies in London to assume functions currently undertaken by local government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chope

My right hon. Friend has no such proposals at present.

Dr. Cunningham

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to lay before the House the information provided under section 56 of the Local Government Act 1985 about the effect on abolition of the Greater London council and metropolitan county councils on local authority manpower; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley

The information to which the hon. Member refers has today been laid in the Library of the House.

I am very pleased to see that the manpower savings which were expected to flow from the removal of this unnecessary and expensive tier of local government have been achieved. Information provided to the "Joint Manpower Watch" and the returns from London boroughs and metropolitan districts indicates that the equivalent of 8,100 fewer full-time staff were employed by local authorities in June 1986 than in June 1985 as a direct result of abolition.

After taking into account those staff which transferred to other public bodies at abolition, it is clear that the Government's forecast of 7,000 posts to be saved, which was made as long ago as November 1984, have been fully realised. This will bring a continuing annual saving to ratepayers of approximately £100 million, with further significant savings to come as the residuary bodies wind down their activities.

In the first year following abolition the one-off cost of payments to staff made redundant at abolition will reduce these savings by an estimated £60 million. This also includes the cost in 1986–87 of detriment payments to compensate staff for loss of earnings on transfer to successor authorities; these will continue—albeit at a much lower level—for seven years. The estimated number of claims for redundancy is 6,310. The great majority of these staff have left local government willingly, generally by taking early retirement; and in some areas posts have been available for all employees of the abolished authorities who wanted them.

It is not possible to equate posts saved to cost reduction in individual areas. However, in London net savings of 4,600 full-time equivalent (fte) local government staff have been realised and in the metropolitan areas savings of 3,500. The London boroughs and metropolitan districts report that in June 1986, 2,700 fte staff in London boroughs and 12,200 in the metropolitan districts were engaged on work assumed following abolition. The new authorities, including ILEA, which assumed certain GLC and metropolitan county council functions were employing some 124,200 staff at that time, and the residuary bodies 4,500. These increases have to be set against the 151,700 (full-time equivalent) staff no longer employed by GLC and MCCs.

These savings will bring an immediate benefit to ratepayers. It is up to successor authorities to ensure that the benefits are passed on to them and continue to be achieved.

I was therefore dismayed that the June "Joint Manpower Watch" returns showed a continuing underlying growth in local authority manpower. The actual annual increase reported in the year to June is 0.5 per cent. But for the effect of abolition and the transfer of staff from local government to the new Manchester airport public limited company, the overall annual growth in manpower would have been 1 per cent. This is the fourth successive quarter in which manpower has risen.

This is very disappointing. Despite the savings which the Government have achieved, local government continues to employ more staff. There is ample evidence that further savings can be made through the more economical provision of services and greater efficiency in their management, and local government has a duty to ratepayers and the public at large to ensure that these are achieved.