| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove): If the hon. Gentleman considers this measure to be so important, will he explain why it took him and his colleagues from28 November, when the regulations were introduced,to 10 January to lay a prayer against them?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is as daft as a brush, if it is not contrary to the rules of order to say so. We laid a prayer against them, but it took a long time for the Government to agree to debate it on the Floor of the House. We do not need any silly interventions like that.I do not think that many of the people whose pay has been affected will be interested in the toings and froings of this order. The Government proposed that we should debate
the matter in Committee. We decided that the regulations should be debated not in Committee, but on the Floor of the House. They are now being debated on the Floor of the House; when matters are debated on the Floor of the House is decided not by the Opposition, but by the Government, as anybody should know.
Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of issues about which people had concerns, such as health and youth unemployment. Yet youth unemployment is going down and we are doing better than other countries in Europe. Is it not the hon. Gentleman and his party who have raised fears, quite falsely, about those matters within the community at large? Do they take responsibility for using political opportunism?
Mr. Dobson: I could apply to the hon. Gentleman's contribution what Winston Churchill said in 1909 when talking about the future of the House of Lords.He challenged any Tory supporter of the existing position of the House of Lords to make speeches defending it.He pointed out that Lord Lansdowne had delivered an essay in feudalism in Oldham and he hoped that he would speak in every part of the country because the Liberals and Labour party members, who were against the House of Lords, would then not have to make their case because he had made it for them. Every time the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) gets up, he makes our case for us.
Above all, people feel insecure about their jobs.If Conservative Members do not believe that many of our fellow citizens feel insecure in their jobs, they are indulging in the worst form of deception, which is self-deception.
The local government reorganisation has been a shambles from start to finish. Against virtually a promise from the then Secretary of State for the Environment,the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), that virtually everywhere would become unitary authorities, we have shadow unitary authorities in office in Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, Bristol, North West Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset, York, the East Riding, North Lincolnshire, Hull, North East Lincolnshire and Selby.
Other orders have been passed by the House, but the councils concerned have not yet come into operation. Those councils are Brighton and Hove, Bournemouth, Darlington, Derby, Luton, Milton Keynes, Poole, Portsmouth, Southampton, Stoke, Thamesdown, Leicester and Rutland. There are also a host of others that have not yet got through the House. Four councils have been approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment--Nottingham, Plymouth, Torbay and Southend. There are also six in Berkshire, plus Herefordshire, Blackburn, Blackpool, Halton, Medway Towns, Peterborough, Thurrock, Warrington and The Wrekin. People in all those areas do not know what is happening to their jobs.
Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton):
I suspect that the House will find that in most authorities that are to be unitary authorities, there is substantial popular backing for those developments. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's party backs those unitary authorities. The reason why the hon. Gentleman is so frustrated by the failure of local government reorganisation to sweep away the county
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. I am feeling rather helpful tonight. I inform hon. Members that it is not permissible to discuss local government reorganisation in general. We are talking about the remuneration of people who have been affected by the reorganisation.
Mr. Dobson:
I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as anyone should, so I shall not be tempted by what the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) has said, other than to say that when the right hon. Member for Henley, now the Deputy Prime Minister, introduced the idea of the Local Government Commission, he made it clear that he expected virtually everywhere in the country to be turned into a unitary authority. If we have had inconsistency, stupidity and a total mess, it is no good blaming the Opposition.
The problem with all this is that, as Conservatives clearly recognise--or should recognise if they are genuinely conservative--change costs money. If we are to have change in local government, whatever the merits of the end of the process of change, we must realise that the process absorbs resources, costs money and causes a lot of bother for the people involved. That is certainly happening at the moment.
For that reason, the Government have just announced that they cannot find the money to finance the process of change, some of which would be devoted to meeting the compensation under the regulations. In effect, the Government have announced that they cannot find money for the process of change in Nottingham, Plymouth, Blackpool, Peterborough, Torbay, Southend, Thurrock, Warrington, Blackburn, Halton, The Wrekin and the Medway towns, and all the changes in the whole of Berkshire.
It appears that the country is in such a mess that the Government, despite the fact that it is their policy, which has the support of the Opposition, which has been proposed by the Local Government Commission and which, as the hon. Member for Taunton has pointed out, is supported by local people in most places, cannot find the money to fund the process of change. As a result, we have an extended period of uncertainty and a likely period during which further expenses will be incurred. That uncertainty and expense will be bad for local people, bad for local purposes and bad for staff.
It is not as if the provision that is being made, either to compensate those who lose their jobs or those whose pay goes down, which is what we are dealing with tonight, is generous. Neither the provision for individuals nor the provision for funding the process of change is generous.
Humberside is being abolished, yet the new East Riding council is short of funds. The new North Lincolnshire council is short of funds. The Bristol authority is clearly short of funds; I think that one or more of my colleagues from Cleveland intend to make the same point. I am sure
that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will want to make the point about the difficulties faced in Selby, which has been knocked about in two ways.
First, the removal of York from North Yorkshire has led to increases in costs for the rest of North Yorkshire, which includes Selby. Secondly, Selby, in the process of change, also lost a substantial amount of the suburbs of York to the new York authority, so it has had an enormous reduction in the rateable value of its residential property. Clearly, Selby, unless the Minister comes up with some extra funds, will find it difficult to cope and even to fund the rather miserable terms of the regulations. Like the other regulations that have stemmed from the reorganisation, the best thing that we can do is to try--
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle):
I am not making a partisan point; I am only interested in the hon. Gentleman's view. How does he think that we shall avoid the mistakes that were clearly made in the previous major reorganisation of 1974, when there was a general view in the House that we were simply changing the deck chairs? There were enormous costs involved in that reorganisation. Despite the fact that the number of authorities was supposed to be reduced, it appeared that members of staff ensured that their jobs were preserved at their current levels. There was grave dissatisfaction throughout the country. How does the hon. Gentleman feel we can avoid that happening again?
Mr. Dobson:
The best way in which to avoid having daft reorganisations of local government is not to have a Tory Government. The hon. Gentleman refers to the previous reorganisation. That reorganisation, which the present Government are now reorganising, was carried out by a Tory Government and the Labour and Liberal parties voted against it. We accept no responsibility for the chaotic mismanagement of change which has been a major characteristic of the Conservative party. Those were the people who spent £16 billion--not million, billion--introducing, trying to run and then getting rid of the poll tax.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. It will now be helpful if we can get back to the proposed remuneration for those who have suffered loss. We are going very wide of the debate, so I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stick to the subject of the debate--remuneration.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |