| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Thomason: I am most grateful for that point. The regulations have indeed been the subject of a great deal of consultation, and many in local government have expressed their gratitude to central Government for the amendments made to the original proposals in the light of their representations.
I therefore wonder what the Labour party is up to today. Have the trade union paymasters decided that they want their puppets to speak? Is a requirement being imposed on some Labour Members to dance to their paymasters' tune? Is this an example of new Labour being operated by old unions?
Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport):
I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). I will not join in his blistering attack on the Conservative Government of the 1970s who brought about the last local government reorganisation. It was also interesting to hear the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) who, as usual, spread balm over our proceedings with his comments, which are always welcome for their creation of cross-party accord. It was, however, a pity that he did not deal with Devon, where his own constituency is to be found. I will endeavour to fill the gap that he left in his speech.
The regulations arise from the reorganisation of local government, and the unitary status that Plymouth and Nottingham, for instance, will enjoy is greatly welcomed. It is supported by almost all the Conservatives in my area and by all in the Labour party. There is strong feeling in Plymouth about the fact that many aspects of our local government have been controlled from Exeter, which is 40 miles away and considerably smaller than Plymouth. That has been a bone of contention in the area. Unitary status will enable local services to be delivered closer to local people.
Like the Minister, we are anxious for an effective transfer of power from the one authority to the other. Education and social services are the most important aspects in this context. I contend that, to achieve high-quality services, we need dedicated local government officers whose morale is high. To deliver services of value, the officers delivering the services must feel valued. There is thus a close relationship between the standard of services and the interests of the people who deliver them.
Unfortunately, with yesterday's announcement, the Government have inflicted on Plymouth, Nottingham and other areas subject to delay the worst possible option not just for the services but for the officers who are trying to deliver them. Reorganisation was announced, then there was equivocation over the timing and now it is to be delayed from 1997 to 1998 or possibly beyond. As he has delayed the introduction of the orders for Plymouth and Nottingham, will the Minister give a date tonight for when the Government intend to bring them in?
The regulations seek to compensate local government officers whose jobs have been reorganised. Several hon. Members have said that it is mean and poor compensation. We must think of its effect on local services. The reorganisation and the delay have created uncertainty where certainty is essential for delivering high-quality services. They have blighted services and inhibited forward planning.
There is one point that I especially want the Minister to answer. Some of the best officers in Plymouth, and I am sure in other places, working in the best interests of delivering services, have been planning in anticipation of the implementation of the orders. In Plymouth, especially on education, there has been much good work over nearly
18 months. To their great credit, several officers have taken on the role of undertaking the pre-planning that is essential to keeping services going and making sure that there is an effective transfer of power from one authority to the other.
What will happen after May this year to officers who have accepted new posts in anticipation of the changes if the changes occur in less than 12 months by May 1997? If the new jobs with the new authority were then changed, would those officers have protection under the regulations? If they have not, we will be inflicting punishment on the very officers who are doing the loyal job of trying to perform a seamless handover of powers from one authority to another. I suspect that the regulations are a recipe for non-co-operation from those officers, who will fear for their jobs. The Minister must give some reassurance on that.
There is more uncertainty where certainty is absolutely required. Local government officers who are unsureof their future, as the hon. Member for Newbury(Mr. Rendel) said, will go to other areas where there is certainty. Areas such as Plymouth will lose their better officers as they plump for authorities whose future is known rather than staying where there is uncertainty.It affects not only Plymouth but the whole county.All the authorities that are not being reorganised are strategically affected. We have the absurd prospect next year in Devon of having county council elections by which councillors will be elected to serve one year on a dying authority while at the same time we have elections for the new unitary authority for the people who will take over their functions in a year's time. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
I shall be brief, as I know that my hon. Friend the Minister wants, 10 minutes to respond to this important debate.
I come from Cheshire, where there is some proposed, change. I wish that the change were greater than the Government have permitted. As we stand, Warrington borough, an old county borough, and Halton borough council will become unitary authorities. As the Minister knows, I made an excellent case, with the borough council, that was widely supported by the public, for unitary status for Macclesfield. We have an excellent council, super officers and a slimmed-down administration that is very competent to take over responsibility from Cheshire county council for education and social services. Moreover, we have a united council: its super Conservative leader, Mrs. Margaret Duddy, and the Liberal Democrats and Labour were united in wanting unitary status for a competent authority.
My borough council goes along with the compensation scheme, believing that in 1996 it is reasonable. Mention has been made of the 1980s and early 1970s, when there
was a major reorganisation of local government. We do not live in the 1970s or the 1980s now; we live in the 1990s. As I said in an intervention on the speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), we cannot isolate local government from the realities of business throughout the country; we cannot provide exceptional compensation schemes for those in local government if similar schemes do not exist in the commercial private sector.
Mr. Curry:
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate.
A number of detailed points have been raised; I shall respond by letter to those with which I cannot deal tonight.
Fearing that there might be some confusion between my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and me, I sought clarification. Such is the romance of the evening that almost no one is obtainable in my Department, for reasons with which I sympathise and, indeed, have a certain empathy.
Mr. Dobson:
Surely not the Secretary of State!
Mr. Curry:
I shall refrain from saying anything that might open up a war on two fronts. I shall, however, ensure that the hon. Gentleman and I are at one in regard to what is possible and what is not.
Mr. Den Dover (Chorley):
Why are those covered by the Teachers Superannuation Consolidation Regulations not covered by this scheme? I take it that the reorganisation does not really affect teachers, so they should not lose out in salary terms. Is that the reason?
Mr. Curry:
Teachers are transferred en bloc to the new authorities, and those regulations are transferred with them. In practice, they have new employers, but that is the only novel aspect of their position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |