| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The rational way in which the hon. Gentleman is tackling the problem is helping the debate. I was a local councillor some years ago and it is my experience that there is pretty good co-operation between counties and most boroughs or districts. Is not it sensible and more than likely that Nottingham city council, as a unitary authority, will take on the majority of those who are currently employed in the city boundaries, to undertake responsibilities that currently lie in the jurisdiction of Nottinghamshire county council?
Mr. Simpson: In normal circumstances that might be correct, but there has been legitimate political disagreement--I suspect the same is true in many other areas--about whether the transfer of responsibilities should have occurred in the first place. I believe that, in Nottingham, an accord has now been worked out--although the two authorities have not always been of one mind. Those who face further delays will find that that
accord will begin to break down. If the county council decides in its forward planning that it would be helpful to relocate staff that it did not want into the city to let the city deal with them on transition, it is unlikely that the city would make an open commitment to those staff. The city has a commitment to take on responsibility for delivering services, but not necessarily in the same way as the county has delivered them.
I am trying to point out that if one tries to apply the regulations to that indeterminate transition process, they simply do not work. We have a recipe for even greater chaos than we had two days ago before the Minister's non-announcement. I do not think that there is any rational basis for leaving the marooned authorities in such a position. I suspect that Plymouth has been making similar strides preparing for the change that would have happened if the shadow elections had taken place this May. Nottingham has done that with the support and help of the Department of the Environment. It is absolutely ready--the local authority is ready, the public are ready and the staff are ready. The only explanation that makes sense locally is that the Conservative party is not ready.
In the elections last year, the Conservatives had huge difficulty in getting candidates to stand and they had to dragoon the dog, the cat and the budgie to field a full team of candidates. The dog, the cat and the budgie have served notice that they are not willing to stand again, and the Conservatives are in a panic. That is how the delay is explained at local level. The public employees and the public will pay the political price of this delay and uncertainty.
Under the regulations, staff in the two authorities, especially those in the county, will have poorer protection and poorer compensation. The authorities will find it impossible to plan services and impossible to deliver job guarantees. With the absence of a timetable, there will be a haemorrhage of talented staff and a blight on the recruitment of new staff. There will be a huge increase in transitional costs as a result of wholly unnecessary delays.
Mr. Roy Thomason (Bromsgrove):
Much has been made of the reorganisation that took place in 1986 and the regulations introduced at that time. There may be a few of us in the Chamber who can remember the 1974 reorganisation and the considerable staff problems associated with that. Some of us remember the senior officers who were peeled off local authorities as the proud traditions of the county boroughs were lost and subsumed into extraordinary creations such as the county of Cleveland and the county of Avon.
How welcome it is, therefore, to see that process reversed in a manner that will give opportunities to officers who are often at the second or third tier in the
current county councils to become seniors in the new authorities. We are much more likely in this reorganisation to see opportunities for career moves to be made and for greater responsibilities to be taken by local government officers than under the reverse process which occurred in 1974. We should, therefore, see this process in that historical context.
I now turn to Labour's attitude in tabling the prayer today. I find it extraordinary that a measure that was laid before the House in the middle of November and came into effect on 28 November should be the subject of a prayer that was laid on 10 January this year. I understand that Labour Members have a Christmas holiday and have all sorts of things to do over that period, such as, no doubt, choosing to which schools to send their children. However, I find it extraordinary that there should be such a delay over what we have been told this evening is an issue of great importance. It is apparently of such great importance that the Labour party could wait a couple of months before it tabled its prayer. It appeared in the Order Paper of 10 January 1996. There it is, as large as life. There is the prayer and that is the date.
I understand that it takes a little time for a prayer to be presented to the House. The fact is, however, that nearly two months went by before that action was taken in this case.
It is interesting that the Labour party appears to be joined, in some of its representations, by the local government associations. Is it possible that the fact that the cost of the regulations will be met by the general taxpayer, not the council tax payer, has something to do with their determination to bring pressure to bear to obtain what are alleged to be better terms?
Staff welfare is the most important issue, although members of the Labour party appear to be keen to ignore it. The regulations pivot around that point. Staff are entitled to some certainty about their future, yet the prayer would prevent them from having that certainty about their future because it would delay the implementation of proposals designed to help them when that reorganisation takes place--in the case of some authorities, in a few weeks' time. Surely the Labour party is not suggesting that the consultation procedure that the Government introduced previously should not be repeated for any amended proposals.
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe):
The hon. Gentleman said that he cared about the impact on staff and he is right to care, but he also mentioned the 1974 reorganisation, which was undertaken by a Conservative Government. The present reorganisation is being undertaken by a Conservative Government, but there are two differences. First, the scheme that we are discussing is not as generous as the scheme for the 1974 reorganisation and, secondly, the 1974 reorganisation was a reorganisation of large counties, and all staff had equal opportunities to apply for vacancies in the new authorities.
In the forthcoming reorganisation, when an authority passes to unitary status, as in the case of my authority, North Lincolnshire, the advantage lies with staff who were with county councils, because they have managed larger departments and received higher salaries. Many district council staff have been unfairly disadvantaged in the reorganisation, yet the compensation scheme is not as generous as the 1974 scheme. How can the hon. Gentleman justify that?
Mr. Thomason:
I do not accept that district council staff will be, on the whole, disadvantaged by the proposals.
Mr. Morley:
I have been through this--I know.
Mr. Thomason:
Perhaps some extraordinary recruitment procedures are being adopted by some Labour-controlled councils, but, on the whole, district council staff should not be disadvantaged, and, where proper recruitment procedures are followed, they will not be disadvantaged. The responsibilities that they bear for district council functions will remain in the new unitary authorities. County staff will be added to district staff to form the new unitary authorities. For example, opportunities for directors of education will be created in a series of authorities. There will be new jobs throughout local government. I believe that the career prospects of many authority officers will be considerably enhanced as a result of the changes.
It is fascinating that the Labour party gets excited about the proposals at a time when the local government associations, which I criticised a few moments ago for being anxious to spend taxpayers' money, say that settlement of the proposals is essential. Their briefing, which no doubt many hon. Members have received, says:
Obviously it is essential that the order receives its passage today and that the regulations are implemented.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the scheme that we are debating follows two separate consultation exercises and that, during those consultation exercises with all those who were interested and involved, several positive changes were made, which were fully appreciated by all authorities concerned?
"It is vital now that . . . staff, who face reorganisation a mere6 weeks away, know where they stand as soon as possible."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |