I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for coming to reply to the debate. These may be almost the last moments of this Parliament, but the problem that I wish to explore will not go away because there is a change of one Parliament for another. It relates very much to the way in which the care and maintenance of highways is dealt with as a consequence of the Highways Act 1980 and earlier legislation.

The particular problem has been created by the arrangements contained in the 1980 Act, whereby district councils can exercise a right to do maintenance of unclassified roads in their territory. On that basis, a district council, in seeking to do its best, is not unnaturally perhaps inclined to develop a champagne taste but with only a beer income to satisfy it. Whereas we would all like authorities to have a champagne income, the problem of where it comes from cannot be put to one side. Authorities have to work within the constraints of what the rates will stand and what is granted by central Government from tax receipts.

In the present system, even though at professional officer-to-officer level there is co-operation, when there is a difference in political control, that co-operation may be undermined or lost by party politicking. That is highly unsatisfactory and cannot be good for the consumer. Similarly, the mechanism allowed for in schedule 7 to the Act is in theory a reasonable way of settling any dispute, but only on a professional level. An officer-to-officer dispute can reasonably be settled by the Secretary of State, acting in the role of professional arbiter rather than as a political person. A comparison can be made with the Secretary of State for the Environment acting in the same capacity over planning appeals.

When the Secretary of State wears a party hat different from that of one of the parties to the dispute, a reasonable professional judgment may be rejected on a purely political basis. Of course, the rejection would come from the party that felt it had been done down. All this can be viewed as nothing but the normal cut and thrust of party politics, but at the bottom of it the consumer cannot and must not be forgotten.

I have in mind the elderly lady lying in the orthopaedic ward, having broken a hip by tripping over a displaced paving slab. She finds no consolation in the thought that it is normal party politicking or even in the possibility of financial compensation; she feels only acute frustration when told by the district council and the county council that it is the fault of the other. That unfortunate person is justified in her anger. She just wants someone to whom to complain and who will carry the can.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the problem exists in my part of the country between Hereford city council — a district council — and Hereford and Worcester county council. Hereford exercised its right in 1974 — when both councils were formed — and ever since to carry out its own maintenance on unclassified roads and pavements within the city boundaries. I use this case as an example to underline my unhappiness with the present position and the way it can be exploited for the wrong reasons. My concern is not just that the roads and pavements of Hereford should be safe for constituents who walk, ride bicycles and drive motor cars—I do all three —but also that there should be full value for money. I have yet to meet a constituent who feels that he pays too little in rates.

There should also be accountability. The present system, as it is capable of being used when there is a difference of political control between the various bodies, does not provide that accountability. In Hereford, for example, no one can claim that the city council has been relatively disadvantaged in respect of similar authorities, such as Worcester, Kidderminster, Stourport, Bromsgrove and Redditch. Every year, for the past six years, Hereford has been, and is now, top of that league in terms of pounds per kilometre of unclassified roads to maintain. In 1986–87, the Wyre Forest estimate was £2,113 per kilometre, Bromsgrove £2,266, Redditch £1,814, with Hereford in the lead at £2,527.

If I read correctly the figures from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, they compare with the average for maintenance of other roads in the county—the category given by CIPFA is "other county roads"—of £1,427 per kilometre. It is also worth noting that Hereford and Worcester have one of the highest figures per kilometre per capita of roads to maintain in the country.

From my discussions with city and county professional officers, it would appear that the degree of mutual understanding and co-operation has been improving steadily of late, and I welcome that. If it will help to achieve the best value for money, so much the better. There appears to be a consensus that the backlog of problems is being reduced. I think that that comes about as a consequence of that co-operation, and it is encouraging. However, all of us who live or work around Hereford know that there are still areas where the pavements and roads are quite deplorable. Some have not been properly maintained in living memory.

On the political side, the position is different. Surely it is wrong for there to be a situation whereby a district council can demand expenditure without having to worry about the consequences of raising it. The expectations of electors are raised for political expediency, with local politicians secure in the knowledge that electorally they will not have to bear the brunt of the increased taxation if they succeed, and that they can pass on the blame if they fail. That is a marvellous position for them, but I am sure that it is unacceptable.

If there is to be accountability, and hence value, surely the lines of responsibility should be cleared away to obviate that problem. Either the county council should do the lot, on the basis that it is the rate precepting authority for that function, or the responsibility for action and funding should be passed over lock, stock and barrel to the district council. There should not be this curious position whereby we can have the one without the other.

In the former case, the professionals of the county councils would argue that they can deploy a level of expertise and scale of approach to the problem that is not available to district councils and that, because district council officers perforce must carry out many other functions as well, they cannot carry the specific expertise to achieve the most effective utilisation of financial resources.

In the latter case, the district council professionals would argue that there is local accountability and an improved opportunity for co-ordination with other district council responsibilities. They would argue that not having that function would jeopardise the viability of their technical service organisations and that the lines of communication for the public would be the shortest.

Both of those arguments have their attractions. However, the present arrangements seem to lead to the worst of all worlds, especially when one moves out of the realm of the professional and into the political.

My hon. Friend will have the vast experience of the Department of Transport at his fingertips and will have access to a far wider scope of examples and experience than I have. The problem is exercising both the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. I should be grateful for any advice or evidence that my hon. Friend can give me that would point to a size of district council above which perhaps the economies of scale and the facility and expertise of local knowledge and organisations would come together in harmony and achieve palpable value for money without giving rise to this split personality.

I also believe that the Audit Commission is doing a special study on the matter. Can my hon. Friend tell the House when he expects it to publish its findings?