---

Mr. Pike: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Conservative Members criticise Labour councils, but they do not make the same criticisms of Westminster council, which has been severely criticised for its actions. I do not condone any wrong actions by Preston borough council, but its present leader and his immediate predecessor have strongly condemned the actions that have been criticised. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South said that this case was typical of Labour authorities, and he made serious allegations. I accept that the right hon. Member for South

20 Nov 1996 : Column 920

Ribble yesterday and in his intervention today referred specifically to Preston, so my comment about Burnley did not apply to him.

I agree with the right hon. Member for South Ribble about the welfare rights services, which received a charter mark earlier this year. I pay tribute to Paul Burgess and his team throughout the county, and to Richard Roxburgh, an officer in Nelson, with whom I deal on many local issues. They provide an excellent service to the people of Lancashire.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South has rightly taken a strong interest in the Gardner case. The individuals involved had a right of appeal. In the latter part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that that had been dealt with earlier this week. They exercised their right of appeal, and on that appeal panel were two Conservative and one independent councillor. Under Lancashire county council's system, people are entitled to have their case reviewed by an appeal panel if they are not satisfied with the way in which it has been dealt with. The criticism of the council in that case is unjustified.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike: I want to be brief, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a short intervention.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman mentioned unitary authorities and Lancashire county council. Does he believe that elderly people, especially those in Burnley, would be better served if their social services were provided by his authority rather than by the county council?

Mr. Pike: I do not believe that. I think that services are better provided locally. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am strongly in favour of unitary local government, and that it is the Conservative Government who set up the local government review which made a mess of it. It proposed a hybrid solution--the worst possible solution for Lancashire--with Blackpool and Blackburn being taken out. That is a great tragedy. But let us not get side-tracked on to that debate: let us keep our minds on the important issue of social services. Social services and education are the two major services provided by the county council.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the social services inspectorate report which followed a previous debate. In a press release dated 20 June, Louise Ellman, leader of Lancashire county council, said:

"The Government commissioned this report after a so-called Parliamentary Debate in which no Labour MPs were allowed to speak. The report says that the justification or otherwise for the complaints concerning bias in residential care have not been substantiated."

As that press release suggests, the tone of the report was very different from that of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South.

In a later press release, Joan Humble, the chair of social services, said:

"The Social Services Committee maintains a continuing review of the arrangements for social care services in Lancashire taking account of recommendations made and the guidance provided by the Department of Health and the Audit Commission. This will continue and a clear focus will be kept on the needs of the most vulnerable people in Lancashire's community."

Mr. Hawkins: In her press release, which the hon. Gentleman read out, the Labour leader of Lancashire

20 Nov 1996 : Column 921

county council, Mrs. Louise Ellman, referred to a "so-called parliamentary debate". What sort of approach is that from the leader of a Labour authority who has been chosen as a prospective parliamentary candidate for Labour, and who aspires to come to the House? We would remember that when the lady became a Labour Member of Parliament, were she to be successful.

Mr. Pike: I think that the phrase "so-called debate" is justified when it refers to a debate in which no one is allowed to express a different point of view. The simple fact is that no one was able to express a contrary view in that debate--so it was not a real debate, allowing both sides of the case to be heard.

Mr. Elletson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike: No, I will not.

The social services inspectorate undertook an analysis of in-house services, which was published in June. It examined allegations made about community care in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South painted a misleading picture: the report certainly does not constitute the damning condemnation that Conservative Members have tried to portray. It showed that levels of overall service remained comparable with, or higher than, those in similar local authorities; that there was rapid growth in purchasing from the independent sector, at a level exceeding the average for other similar local authorities; that there was rapid expansion in the purchase of domiciliary services from the independent sector, from zero in 1993 to £11 million in 1995; that, in home care services, the growth of the independent sector had exceeded that of the in-house service; that the market share of independent nursing and residential homes in Lancashire had been consistently higher than the average for shire counties and England overall between 1993 and 1995; that, subject to the availability of resources, there was a wide range of choice and flexibility for users; and that the level of resources committed to management and administration was unexceptional compared with that in other counties.

According to the analysis,

"the report fails to substantiate allegations made that there is any systematic bias towards the use of in-house residential services but instead shows that the Government Direction on choice between public and private sector residential care has been complied with".

That view of the report is very different from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South and other Conservative Members.

In-house services are clearly long established, and people still have confidence in them. I have visited a number of private homes: I undertook two tours during the summer recess. Some of them provided an equally good standard of care. I always say that the standard of a home cannot be judged by the carpets, curtains and wallpaper--not that those are unimportant, but I am sure that we all agree that the most important aspects of the care of elderly people are staffing and the attention given to those people. We must make the maximum use of the homes that we have; it would be absurd not to do so.

Let me say a little about charging policy. Lancashire county council has suffered severe financial restraint. Let us make no mistake: because of capping and other financial limitations, and the area cost adjustment--which

20 Nov 1996 : Column 922

has caused it major problems--the council has not sufficient money to provide the services that it would like to provide. Finance and Government are responsible for the problems, and the form to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred was entirely justified in pointing that out.

The council was forced to make major cuts. One way of minimising those cuts was the introduction of a charging policy, which reduced the cuts by bringing in some money. The council tried to introduce the simplest and fairest possible system, and the level of charges is comparatively low.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): If Lancashire county council felt that it must make cuts because of a lack of financial resources, why did it underspend its social services budget by £1.94 million in 1993-94? Can the hon. Gentleman also explain to me, and to the people of Lancashire, why it underspent the budget by £3.4 million in 1995-96?

Mr. Pike: There have been so many changes in financing that it is difficult to adjust to those changes quickly.

Mr. Burns: What!

Mr. Pike: The Minister ought to be very careful. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred to a letter that he had received from the Minister, but the Minister chose to send that letter only to Conservative Members representing Lancashire seats. Why did he not send it to all Members of Parliament? He accused Lancashire county council of being political. I consider it very political of the Minister to choose to write--

Mr. Burns: Answer the question.

Mr. Pike: Let us deal with my point first. I am making my speech; the Minister will make his in due course. Was it not political of the Minister to act as he did? He should have written to all of us, to let us all see exactly what he is saying to Lancashire county council.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) will be dealing with these matters, but, in fact, Lancashire county council has used the money that it did not spend, having carried it forward. It believes that it is on target to spend this year's budget; indeed, there is no doubt that that is so. But to criticise a marginal underspend--[Hon. Members: "What?"] It is a very big budget, and the circumstances are extremely difficult when the position is changing all the time.

---