House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Jul 1995

Column 538

me; but I have heard suggestions that it will appear in mid-July. Obviously, any question of a debate can be considered only in relation to that.

I reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier suggestions out of hand, although I understand why, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, he feels it necessary to make them. In my view, the recognition that education and training in the current world of employment should be brought together and examined on a basis that stretches right across people's working life constitutes a sensible acceptance of the realities.

Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak): I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that European Standing Committee B will meet next Wednesday to discuss a preliminary draft budget for the European Commission for 1996. Can he confirm that the debate will be open to any hon. Member, rather than being restricted to members of the Committee?

Mr. Newton: Yes, of course. Debates in European Standing Committees are accessible to all hon. Members. Indeed, I understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested that the purposes of scrutiny may be better served by debate in a Committee, where they have an opportunity to question Ministers in detail.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): The Leader of the House should be aware of the deep unease in the science community about the apparent downgrading of science in the recent reshuffle. Will he give the House a commitment that hon. Members will have the same opportunities as they have now to table oral questions to the Cabinet Minister responsible for science, and that there will be a rota similar to the one that we enjoy at present?

Mr. Newton: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman--perhaps in a quieter tone, but in rather the same way as I resisted the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)--that I entirely reject the idea that any downgrading is implied by the change that has been made. On the contrary, I think that that change recognises the importance of science, not least to the industrial life and future of the country, by relating it to the Department of Trade and Industry.

I am more than happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's point about questions, or to arrange for it to be considered, in the wider context of my earlier answer.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will the Leader of the House find time in the spill-over period, because there seem to be plenty of days available then for debate, and it could stretch for several weeks if need be, to have a debate in Government time on the housing market? He will no doubt have noticed the report of the National and Provincial building society, followed by that of the Halifax building society, which showed that, this month, for the fourth month, house values had fallen by 2 per cent. Negative equities are therefore rising. As many people own their houses and many young couples need a home in this land, might it not be a useful use of parliamentary time to discuss that matter in some depth?

Mr. Newton: I simply make the point that house-building starts for the whole of last year were 13 per cent. higher than in the previous year. The position is

Column 539

that the affordability of housing is reflected by the fact that house prices are now the lowest in relation to income since 1985.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): On the demise of the Department of Employment, will the Leader of the House confirm that at least a negative statutory instrument must be tabled for a transfer of functions?

On the education statement that we have just heard, despite the notice in the Lobby that says "statement on nursery education", does not that statement, at best, threaten the whole future of nursery education in that there will be three forms of education in relation to finance and structure for three-year-olds, four-year-olds and five-year-olds? Will it not also destabilise training of four years for nursery school teachers and their assistants, and devalue the whole structure that has built up?

Mr. Newton: Of course there will be diversity and choice; that is part of the intention of the exercise. What is clear and was clear at Prime Minister's questions is that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do not like diversity and choice and we are in the business of providing it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement to be made, if not tomorrow, certainly next week, in connection with the reports in The Guardian today in advance of the "True Stories: Deadly Experiments" programme, which is to be shown this evening on Channel 4 and which relates to possibility that women, especially pregnant women, were used as guinea pigs with radiation during the 1950s and 1960s? In view of the distress that that has caused, not least in my region, where 91 women were apparently involved, it is important that the Government make clear exactly what happened, and allay other fears that people may have as a result that programme.

Mr. Newton: Depending on what actually appears in the programme tonight, I am sure that my right hon. Friend with relevant responsibilities would want to consider carefully any such suggestion.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): When does the Leader of the House intend to move the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, which was on the Order Paper yesterday and was not moved? Why was courtesy not extended to myself, who had tabled amendments to the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench? We were not told that it was not going to be moved. I understand that the Opposition Whips were also not so advised. A simple courtesy should have been extended to us to inform us that that was the intention last night. In any event, when will the right hon. Gentleman get around to arranging for hon. Members to discuss that important, albeit complicated measure?

Mr. Newton: It is well known that the usual channels always move in mysterious ways, and I will see if I can elucidate that mystery.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West): First, will the Deputy Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State be speaking on behalf of the Government in any of next week's debates? Secondly, will he be deputising for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions when the

Column 540

Prime Minister is absent? Lastly, will arrangements be made urgently to outline the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities so that we can address parliamentary questions to him?

Mr. Newton: On the three questions, I do not immediately see any debate that I have announced that would be likely to involve the participation of the First Secretary. Secondly, I would naturally anticipate that the First Secretary, as Deputy Prime Minister, would deputise for the Prime Minister. Thirdly, the First Secretary's responsibilities were outlined in a note on the press release yesterday.

Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South): In view of the statement by the drinking water inspectorate that the households of some 10 million people receive drinking water with lead levels that could cause brain damage to two-year-olds, which shows that nothing has really changed under this Government, will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Secretary of State at least to make a statement as soon as possible on that alarming report?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Edward O'Hara (Knowsley, South): May I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) for an urgent debate on the crisis in the housing market? I do not recognise the buoyant picture presented by the Leader of the House. According to the Department of Employment's own latest quarterly statistics, there is a 14 per cent. decline in private starts, a 31 per cent. decline in housing association starts in the past six months, a 15 per cent. fall in new applications, and a corresponding decline in the building merchants supplies trade. It is a picture of no change in housing depression under this Government, no chance for people in negative equity, no chance for people who want a house to rent, and no chance for people involved in the construction and building merchants industries. Cannot the House at least be given a chance to discuss urgently that crisis in the housing market?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier, but I would draw attention to the fact that what the hon. Gentleman is saying, even though I do not accept the implication of his comments, would appear to be in order during the debate on the economy next week. That is, however, a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): May we have a debate to discuss the corruption of our democratic system? In one country in these isles, the Conservative party can gain only 4 per cent. of the councillors in the last local government election, and only 4 per cent. of the vote in the Islwyn by-election, yet it rules Wales--the other 96 per cent. Why have the Government the cheek to appoint another Secretary of State for Wales, another Governor-General, who is alien to the people of Wales, who owes Wales no loyalty, and who has little understanding and little knowledge of that country? Is that not a slur on the few Tory Members representing Wales, who have been overlooked for the past eight years? Is not the appointment of the new Governor-General a calculated and contemptuous insult to the people of Wales?

Column 541

Mr. Newton: No.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): As we have had success already with early-day motion 1223, will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1233?

[ That this House warmly welcomes the publication, by the University of Sheffield and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough, of a new study, Confronting Industrial Demise: the Employment and Unemployment Experiences of Miners and their Families in South Yorkshire and North East Derbyshire; recognises that the survey's context is the dramatic and unprecedented dismantling of a major industry with severe implications for employment and communities in already economically deprived areas; welcomes the key conclusion of this authoritative survey that the key to successful re-employment is education; urges serious consideration of its policy recommendations for responding to major redundancies and mass unemployment, including the granting of equal status to education and training, the transformation of the current training for work scheme into an education and training for work scheme, with the same benefits, that the provision by the Further Education Funding Council of financial support for the unwaged and their dependants should also be provided by the Higher Education Funding Council, the establishment of a national fund for small grants for learning materials in support of an education and training for work scheme, collaboration between labour market adjustment services in order to improve delivery and reduce wasteful duplication and the decentralisation of these services to community level in order to focus on and be within the reach of the most acutely affected families; and welcomes the launch of this important document on 14th June in the Palace of Westminster. ]

That is about confronting industrial demise and deals with a study undertaken by Sheffield university in association with Rotherham metropolitan council on what happened to miners when they were made redundant. It discovers that there is a link between education and re- employment. It might therefore be useful for us to discuss a matter that actually covers the responsibility of the new Department for Education and Employment. That report might be one of the few matters where those interests link so directly.

Mr. Newton: The report will be read with care. I am grateful, which is relatively unusual for me in relation to the hon. Gentleman, because his point, as he implied, underpins my argument about the importance of the links between education and employment, especially in respect of training, which does not appear to have penetrated to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, who is sitting behind him. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might turn around and have a word with him.

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate): The Leader of the House will be aware of the unanimous report published this week by the Select Committee on Social Security condemning as massively unfair the compensation recovery unit and calling for a root and branch examination of its procedures. As that has impacted on more than one occasion on my constituents, who have endured, in many instances, lengthy legal struggles before they were awarded damages for injury

Column 542

and illness, only to be bemused at the compensation recovery unit dividing those benefits in many instances by more than half, would it be possible to have a debate? My constituents' concern is that, in this matter, the Government seem to be acting for the benefit of not the electorate, but the insurance companies.

Mr. Newton: I should perhaps make it clear that I do not think that anyone would seriously argue that the state should duplicate compensation awards and the Select Committee made it clear that it does not support that view. Beyond that, the Select Committee has raised some points which need consideration, and they will be given that consideration.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): May I press the Leader of the House a little further about the Office of Public Service and Science? Will he consider urgently providing time for a debate, particularly so that we can examine the future of the foresight programme and the "forward look" exercise? Those are important exercises that have been well received on both sides of the House and by the science community. The science community will demand an early explanation about what is going on. It is no good leaving this until after the summer recess.

Mr. Newton: I will not add to what I said earlier. Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry are due to answer questions next Wednesday.

Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): In view of the alarming reports from the British Medical Association conference in Harrogate about what has happened to community care two years after its implementation, with its survey showing that three quarters of those doctors asked said that conditions for their patients had worsened and with four out of five doctors saying that bed blocking was a factor in that, will the Leader of the House make Government time available for an urgent debate on that worrying matter?

Mr. Newton: With the recess not far down the track, I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate. I will draw the hon. Lady's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for any Government to abolish a Department of State without giving the House an opportunity to discuss the matter, without the courtesy of a statement from the relevant Minister and with the Leader of the House treating our request for a statement with such contempt? Surely the House should consider this matter. It is for the Government to bring the matter before the House. It is a question of the order of the House, not merely a matter of Government business.

Madam Speaker: It is perfectly in order for the Government to make departmental and ministerial changes. The Leader of the House has answered in detail today the questions about such changes not only from the hon. and learned Gentleman but from the shadow Leader of the House as well as from other Back Benchers. We shall have to leave it at what the Leader of the House has said, which will be in Hansard tomorrow. I shall take no further points of order. We shall get on with our business.

Column 543

Local Government

5.2 pm

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,

That the draft Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That the draft Staffordshire (City of Stoke-on-Trent) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

That the draft Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

That the draft Derbyshire (City of Derby) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

That the draft Bedfordshire (Borough of Luton) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

That the draft Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

That the draft Dorset (Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

That the draft East Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

That the draft Hampshire (Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

Mr. Curry: The nine orders that we shall debate today--

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) rose --

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members understand that I must safeguard the business of the House. There are a number of hon. Members who want to speak in the debate and who are directly involved in the subject of these nine orders. We cannot continue with points of order, many of which are often bogus. If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) wishes to speak to me, I am now going to my office and I am prepared to see him there, in spite of the fact that I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm. We will now get on with the business of the House.

Mr. Curry: The nine orders implement the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the future structure of local government in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire, Dorset, County Durham, East Sussex, Hampshire, Staffordshire and Wiltshire. When the orders are implemented, a substantial part of the review of the structure of shire England will have been completed. The end result of that review may not be what many of us expected, but we have always said that a diverse pattern of local government with unitary authorities in some places and a two-tier system remaining in others could be the right outcome overall. I stress that in reaching our decisions about whether to

Column 544

accept, modify or reject the recommendations, we have always sought to provide a local government structure which reflected most accurately the different circumstances of differing areas. We believe that that will be achieved by these orders.

It may be helpful to the House if I take together the principal issues common to all these orders. I shall outline the details of the proposed new structure in all the areas. I shall then deal with the boundaries, the powers, the functions, the electoral arrangements, the staffing and planning and the proposed ceremonial arrangements. Where different arrangements are being proposed in specific areas, I shall outline how and why they differ.

From 1 April 1997, Bournemouth, Darlington, Derby, Durham, Luton, Milton Keynes, Poole, Portsmouth, Southampton and Thamesdown will be unitary authorities on their existing boundaries. The remainder of the counties within which they are located will remain two-tier, retaining both district and county councils. Similarly, the city of Stoke-on-Trent will become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries, except for a minor change to the boundary between Stoke and the borough of Stafford. Also, from 1 April 1997 there will be a new unitary authority of Brighton and Hove comprising the areas of the two existing districts of Brighton and Hove. The remainder of the county of East Sussex will remain two-tier.

The minor change to the boundary between the city of Stoke-on-Trent and the borough of Stafford gives effect to the commission's recommendation that the Josiah Wedgwood works at Barlaston should be transferred to Stoke in the interests of business efficiency. It also unites a sewage treatment works into Stoke.

Hon. Members will have noticed that these orders, with the exception of East Sussex, do not contain the powers and duties dealing with preparation and co-operation which were included in the orders that the House has debated before. Rather than repeat those in each order we decided to remove them and place them in general regulations. However, the powers and duties will be the same as in the orders that have already been made and, in addition, we have consulted on them twice; once in draft and once alongside each draft structural change order. We shall lay those regulations before Parliament in the next few days.

The East Sussex order is different because we have to make special provision placing powers and duties on the existing districts of Hove and Brighton. Therefore, the order provides that between the establishment date and the reorganisation date, the new council for Brighton and Hove will be a shadow authority with the function and the powers to enable it to prepare for taking on full local authority powers on the reorganisation date. The existing district councils will continue their functions over that period.

There is no need to create shadow authorities for the other unitary authorities because they will be continuing authorities and will be given additional powers to prepare for the transfer of functions. They continue with the existing district powers until the point at which they automatically assume the powers of a full unitary authority.

The role of staff in the reorganisation is crucial. Newly elected councils must pay close attention to staffing matters. It will be for them to decide on their staffing structures in the light of the new functions that they will

Column 545

be taking on. We have taken a number of steps to help ensure that the transition to the new structures is as smooth and fair as possible and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has had a positive and constructive meeting with representatives of the local authority unions. We will, of course, continue to try to meet their concerns.

Although we expect the majority of staff to remain in local authority employment, we recognise that some may be redundant. For such cases, compensation provision will apply as set out in the regulations that we made last December. We have also announced our intention to provide for the compensation of those staff who wish to stay in local government employment but who may have to take a drop in salary in the new staffing structures. We will consult on those regulations soon.

We believe that authorities which are to be given unitary status should be given a fresh democratic mandate. Therefore, except in Brighton and Hove, all the current district councillors will retire in May 1996 and there will be whole council elections to the new unitary authorities at that time. In Brighton and Hove there will, at the same time, be elections to the shadow authority.

The orders provide transitional arrangements to return the authorities to the electoral cycles prescribed in the Local Government Act 1972. Derby, Stoke-on-Trent, Portsmouth, Southampton, Thamesdown and Milton Keynes will, therefore, be returned to their current arrangements of elections by thirds. In Brighton and Hove, Darlington, Poole, Luton and Bournemouth there will be elections in 1996 and 1999 and every four years after that. If any of those authorities wish to apply to the Secretary of State to change to a system of election by thirds, they can do so, provided that the council passes a resolution with a majority of not less than two thirds of the members. That system already exists.

The unitary authorities that we propose will be responsible for strategic as well as local land use planning in their areas. In Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, East Sussex, Hampshire and Wiltshire we have concluded that it is desirable for strategic planning to continue across the existing county area. We are therefore asking the new unitary authorities, as structure planning authorities, to work together with the county council in each case to maintain a joint structure plan for their combined areas. In the cases of Derbyshire and Staffordshire, the commission has proposed that the unitary authority and the county council should also accept joint responsibility for structure planning over their combined areas outside the Peak district national park. In the case of Durham, the commission has proposed that Darlington council should establish joint structure planning arrangements with the unitary authorities to be established in Cleveland. We agree with that recommendation and will give effect to it by transferring Durham county council's strategic planning responsibilities for the area of Darlington to Darlington council. That will enable Darlington to make voluntary arrangements with the Cleveland authorities to work on a joint structure plan for their combined areas. We are confident that voluntary arrangements for joint work in each of those groups will achieve the necessary results.

Each order provides for the relevant existing county police authority to continue to cover both the area of the unitary authority and the residual county area. Each order

Column 546

makes provision for the members of the particular police authority to be appointed by both the county council and the new unitary authority.

There will be combined fire authorities covering the new unitary authorities and the remaining county councils so that the existing brigade areas may be preserved. In order that the Home Office can achieve that by making fire combination schemes under the Fire Services Act 1947, the orders each provide for the relevant unitary authority to become a fire authority so that they can subsequently be brought together.

Sir David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West): When Luton's shadow authority is elected in May 1996, will it mean that the existing county councillors from Luton, who are elected to Bedfordshire county council at county hall, gradually cease to play any part in governing Bedfordshire?

Mr. Curry: They will play no further role from that date in the government of the unitary authority--from the county.

The orders do not provide for ceremonial arrangements, for which separate provision will be made in general regulations. However, it may be helpful if I briefly explain to the House--

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): I do not want to be contentious. From what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) said, I believe that he was trying to find out when the Luton councillors will cease to have any say in the affairs of Bedfordshire. My understanding is that that would happen, not when the authority became a parallel authority, but when Luton took over full self-control.

Mr. Curry: I am sorry--I gave the right answer to the wrong date. [Laughter.] The correct answer with the correct date is that, in 1997, the unitary authority for Luton will assume full powers and, at that date, no county councillors will influence Luton and no councillors from Luton will influence the county council. There will not be a shadow authority, but in 1996 there will be an election for the new authority of Luton, which will have the task of carrying through the existing powers and preparing for the new unitary authority. I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) with the specific details.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): I do not wish to push my hon. Friend too far on the matter, but it is relevant to the budget and whether Luton county councillors have any input into that budget. Are they shadow councillors? Is there any legislation preventing them from having any input into the budget, which will be very relevant for the county in 1997? I appreciate that my hon. Friend may have to write with clarification, but that is important to the

representatives of my constituency of Luton and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel). Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify the matter by writing to us if, quite understandably, he is unable to give us the information from the Dispatch Box this afternoon.

Mr. Curry: I think that I am able to provide that information from the Dispatch Box, but so that there should be no confusion, I shall ask my hon. Friend the

Column 547

Minister of State to ensure that he can give the biblical text on the subject when he winds up the debate. I think that that will satisfy everyone.

The answer in relation to Luton will be the answer that is viable for all the authorities with which we are dealing, with the single exception of the combined Brighton and Hove authority. In that case, because we are combining authorities, not creating a unitary authority entirely on its existing boundaries, there will be a shadow authority. There will not be a shadow authority in the case of the other authorities because they retain their existing boundaries and will continue in the same way in territorial terms. There will be an election for councillors to prepare the transition and to carry on the responsibilities of existing authority. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will clarify that with mathematical precision and digital clarity.

Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): Could my hon. Friend clarify the position for my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and myself in relation to Bournemouth? We understood that, under the draft order, elections would take place in 1996 for the new authority to take over in 1997. But from what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said, it seems that the new authority will take over in 1996. Can he clarify that?

Mr. Curry: The distinction is that there will be elections for new authorities in 1996. Those new authorities will assume the powers of transition until they assume the role of unitary authorities the following year. But they will also discharge some of the functions of the existing authority in that time because they will have to prepare for the new authority. Once again, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be specific in his answers on that. We have had arguments in the House before about when a continuing authority is not a continuing authority--

Mr. Dobson: We do not want to get into that.

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman says, we do not want to get into that again.

I was explaining that the orders do not provide for ceremonial arrangements, for which separate provision will be made in general regulations. However, I will explain the proposed arrangements. Each unitary authority created under the orders will be deemed to be part of the relevant county for ceremonial and related purposes, and will therefore remain within the jurisdiction of the existing lord lieutenant and high sheriff. The general regulations will achieve that by making provision for the amendment of the relevant primary legislation. Once those regulations have been made, we shall insert a related provision in each order.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury (Hove): An important part of the ceremonial arrangements is the name of the borough. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the name Brighton and Hove--it should, of course, be Hove and Brighton, even if that is less euphonious--can be changed only with the authority of the House? My hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of the citizens of Hove were not altogether happy about being joined with Brighton.

Mr. Curry: Any authority can apply to change its name, but the authority is currently designated Brighton and Hove.

Column 548

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: That is a partial answer from my hon. Friend, but if the authority applies, does it apply to the Secretary of State? Does the matter have to come before the House or can the Secretary of State make the change by edict?

Mr. Curry: I shall inquire about the precise procedure, but just as a local authority can, with a qualified majority of its members, apply to change its electoral arrangements, I envisage that similar arrangements will be used if an authority wants to change its name. As my right hon. Friend will know, a large number of places in this country are now called by a curious hybrid name that none of us recognises. I hope that some of them may revert to names that are more familiar to us, but that is entirely a matter for their own appreciation, not mine.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Perhaps he will write to me to clarify the situation. If such an application is made, who approves or disapproves it, and how?

Mr. Curry: I shall certainly do that for my right hon. Friend because I am conscious of Hove's identity and its clear anxiety to avoid the assumption that it will be taken over by Brighton. The purpose of the regulations is not that Hove should be taken over. The changes for which the orders provide will create more accountable local government in the areas affected. That creation of individual and independent unitary authorities will be welcomed. I therefore commend the orders to the House.

5.18 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): Since the House last debated the product of the local government review, it is fair to say that the situation has changed, and changed considerably for the better--not least because the Local Government Commission itself has been reviewed, also for the better.

The propositions before us are part of an arrangement which is still not ideal, but certainly a great improvement on what we faced at the beginning of the year. As a result of all the changes, a substantial number of cities and towns which used to be self-governing either have been or are likely to be granted self-governing status again, and a number of others which have grown over the past few years will be granted that status and deserve it. That includes those for which the commission has already recommended what one might call county borough status again and where the Secretary of State has accepted the commission's recommendation, and those which, with all- party agreement, have been referred back to the commission with a view to them being considered as county boroughs inside counties, the remaining parts of which are not changed. Clearly we cannot anticipate the commission's ultimate decision, but it seems likely in the circumstances that most, if not all of those referred back, will be given their independence. The point that needs to be made to them is that now that there is a reasonably well-run, orderly and logical group of people on the commission, they can be reasonably assured of receiving the independence that they deserve, if they make their case reasonably well.

We have already given independence to Hull, Hartlepool, Bristol, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Bath and Redcar--some of them, as the Minister has pointed out, with names that I can neither remember nor wish to remember.

Column 549

In addition, it is likely that most, if not all, of the following towns and cities will, as a result of the review and the changes agreed between the Secretary of State and myself earlier in the year, become independent. Blackburn, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton and Hove, Basildon and Thurrock, Darlington, Dartford and Gravesham, Derby, Exeter, Gloucester, Leicester, Luton, Medway Towns, Nottingham, Norwich, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Thamesdown--which most people think of as Swindon--Warrington and The Wrekin, should all end up independent and having full control over all the services in their areas.

Most of those towns and cities had such an independent role in the past and it was sadly taken away from them in the misguided Conservative reforms of 1974. I am glad to say that, with all-party agreement, the House is putting that right. A limited number, including Thamesdown, alias Swindon, and The Wrekin, alias Telford, will achieve that status for the first time.

Taken as a whole, this is a big step forward. There is now some consistency of approach across the country, although there are still some oddities. I regret the fact that places such as Chester, Carlisle, Lincoln, Oxford and Ipswich are not numbered among those which have referred back to the commission. It would have been better if they had had the opportunity to make their case to the commission.

I thank the Secretary of State--even in his absence. When he last made a statement on this matter, he promised me that he would agree to meet the trade unions to discuss the problems facing staff because of the transfer. That meeting took place. Both the Secretary of State and the unions represented felt that it was a very worthwhile meeting and that some improvements were secured. But there is a danger of the entire process still being marred by the general attitude that worse arrangements, compensation and terms are being offered to the staff who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs or their status or had their jobs changed for the worse. Indeed, they are expecting to face worse terms and conditions than when the metropolitan counties were abolished by Mrs. Thatcher.

It is worth reminding the House that many of those people have devoted all their lives to serving the residents of their area, yet their lives are being disrupted and their careers ended through no fault of theirs. Those people, and those who know them, will compare that with the rather generous treatment which the Government have afforded themselves over the past few days. The Foreign Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who after all have another job to go to--they are still Members of Parliament, setting aside any other jobs that they might get outside this place while they continue to be Members of Parliament--are entitled to a compensation payment of £8,658, for losing ministerial office.

It may come as an even bigger surprise to discover that the former Welsh Secretary who resigned in order to challenge the Prime Minister also entitled himself, by that resignation, to the compensation payment of £8,658. When those outside this place see that people who have worked hard for a local authority in trying to provide a good local service for perhaps 20 or 30 years, are losing

Next Section

Home Page