Mr Anthony Steen (Liverpool Wavertree)

I am proud to succeed a man so respected in this House, so loved in his constituency and with such a reputation for public service in this country and overseas. Sir John Tilney was Member of Parliament for Wavertree for 24 years. He had the special distinction of speaking not only in this House but immediately outside it in Parliament Square at the unveiling ceremony of the statue of Sir Winston Churchill, having played a great part in seeing that it was built there. He set a high standard and established a great reputation in Wavertree with his wife, Guinevere. I hope my wife, Carolyn and I will be able to live up to this standard in forthcoming years.

I have delayed intervening in this House for some time, as some hon. Members may have noticed, awaiting an appropriate opportunity to bring to the notice of the House a serious and grave issue, one which has a direct bearing on this debate, which faces my constituency, the city of Liverpool, and the major part of this country. Since John Tilney's day the size of local authority districts has greatly changed. In his day people identified with a small unit which was accessible and comprehensible to them. These small units have now been superseded by giant authorities where fundamental decisions on strategic policy affecting the lives of ordinary people are taken by what seems to them a remote authority no longer representing them.

It is this lack of identity and sense of distance from those who make decisions that is creating an alienation foreign in this country and endangering the democratic process. Post-Beveridge and more recently post-Seebohm we have seen new and increasing pressures placed on local authorities by this Chamber which in turn have given rise to new levels of expenditure. In 1963 the rate per head, including central Government grant, was £48. By 1972 this figure had risen to £128. The location of power and the ratio between central Government and local government expenditure have also changed in that today more than 65 per cent. of all public expenditure is incurred directly by central Government. This in turn results in over-dominance of central Government on the local authority and of the local authority on the community.

Does this increase in dependence on central Government matter? I believe that it does. It takes away local authority control in determining the destiny of the people whom it was elected to represent. This undermines the democratic process which is at the cornerstone of our local government system and is admired by countries throughout the world.

But perhaps more important—a view which I imagine is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—it takes away the self-reliance, motivation and willingness of the individual to take action for himself and for his neighbours. It also reduces his incentive to take action for the benefit of the community.

If the increased power of central Government had removed injustices at local level there might have been some justification for the Government's financial dominance, but that is not borne out by the facts. More than 4½ million people live in more than 1¼ million homes which are unfit for human habitation. One in six homes lacks one or more of the basic amenities. In Liverpool, 5 per cent. of the population live in overcrowded conditions, according to the 1971 census. It has been estimated that about 30 per cent. of the disabled still do not get help. About 43·6 per cent. of all children leave school without educational attainment, and 2 million adults are estimated to be illiterate. Tens of thousands of old people remain isolated and neglected, and an increasing number die alone. During 1972 at least 7 million supple- mentary benefit claims were made. The social conditions in which our people are living are a terrible indictment of our times, and the situation is getting worse.

Surely the time has come for a radical reappraisal of how we spend public money at local level and what level of services can be expected to meet the demands of a primarily urban society. It is apparent that public services are not tackling the fundamental human and urban problems, but are designed, albeit unintentionally, to reinforce the dependency syndrome to which I have already referred.

I want to suggest an entirely new style, new process, new social philosophy—not a new political party—to tackle this kind and scale of problem. I can claim firsthand experience of what I am advocating as a youth and community worker and founder of Task Force.

Task Force has recruited about 100,000 young volunteers in London alone to care for neighbours and to befriend the old, the lonely and the handicapped. It has reinforced the importance of involving young people in understanding and caring for the needs of the individual and shows what can be done.

I think that you, Mr. Speaker, know the importance of this work, having been actively involved in helping to found Task Force. The Prime Minister—if he were here—would recollect, as would my own Leader—if he were here—the all-party programme that was launched from 10 Downing Street six years ago—YVFF—the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, formerly of this House, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and you, Mr. Speaker, played a major part in building YVFF into the largest major community work foundation in Britain today sending small teams of community workers into areas of severe urban stress where the ordinary channels of communication have broken down. There they tackle social anomalies through a variety of action projects and have helped to reduce risks to the community. It was my privilege to be involved as director of that foundation since its inception. I retire from that post tomorrow.

It is this spirit of social responsibility, kindled by YVFF, Task Force and many other similar community organisations, which may provide some guidelines on how to handle the problems of alienation and resentment which are now so prevalent and increasing rapidly.

The changes that I am advocating at the local authority level would see a new style of approach adopted which would engage every person in the decision-making processes and evoke hope within them that they have power over their own destinies. This spirit of hope opens new political possibilities. Instead of public philanthropy, which some of the major Government community programmes of recent years have offered, resources could be used by communities, especially for residents in high stress areas, in a way which would bring dignity instead of despair.

I have been trying to persuade the Liverpool City Council to encourage the tenants of a new council estate known as the Belle Vale Estate—rather inappropriately named—to tackle their own problems: for example, vandalism in car parks, lack of play facilities, refuse bins on fire, no grass and no trees, unmade-up roads, and broken pavements.

I have asked the Liverpool City Council not about administrative reorganisation but about adopting a completely new way of thinking. Instead of waiting for officialdom to take action—now almost too late—the new approach could have had an immediate impact.

It is not only housing estates that produce some of the worst urban problems, but new constructions like the Rocket Flyover in my constituency at the end of the M62. The Department went ahead with that without utilising the knowledge or experience which has been accumulated over past years. It did not properly consult the residents, and this has directly affected the attitude of local people. The residents have still not had a rate reduction, their homes are still not sound-insulated, they do not know when they are to get compensation, telephone kiosks have been removed overnight, trees have been dug up without authority, and the site office, which is there to establish good relations with the community, is just failing in its public relations.

Public participation is still regarded by many as a hindrance and delay rather than as an enrichment of the democratic process. This short-sightedness and lack of vision directly results in huge social and financial costs. This can be illustrated in the acceleration of rate expenditure. Officials are being paid to handle a deluge of dissatisfied and unhappy ratepayers who, understandably, are complaining about the blunders of officialdom which could have been avoided if genuine participation had taken place. The community and the ratepayers pay twice: first for the blunders and, secondly, for the face-saving operations which follow.

Public participation and community involvement would make public services less expensive. I speak from experience of 14 years of community work at the rock face, the grass roots—call it what one will. More community involvement could result in a saving of expenditure which we all so much desire today.

The cold hand of bureaucratic indifference has stifled the latent British talent of finding solutions to urban problems. I recognise that it is possible to justify the increased size and scale of local authorities, but that does not absolve them for failing to recognise the attendant problems that result.

By mobilising local people to do things for themselves, it is possible to envisage neighbourhood development groups which would have delegated powers from these huge councils and be responsible for the day-to-day running of council estates. The make-up would be heavily biased towards the people in the local community and the leaders of the community groups. By all means let us have professional guidance from the social work area team leaders, the local councillors and someone from the treasurer's department to see that the books are in order. But they must have power and money to deal with the blocked gutter and the broken paving-stone, to plant trees. finance play schemes and run community centres. They would have their own labour force. They would be there for and of the people. This would introduce an important new element into local government with which people would be able to identify and feel once more that the neighbourhood was truly part of their lives.

Unless we introduce this kind of innovation the nerveless hand of bureaucratic inertia will demand more money from us for a poorer quality service and at ever-increasing cost. The decision facing the House today is whether it will send a message of hope to all those people who have come to despair of politicians and Government.

See this speech in context