House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Nov 1990

Hansard

House of Commons

Wednesday 14 November 1990

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Clyde Port Authority Bill

London Underground (Victoria) Bill

Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill

Shard Bridge Bill

Motion made,

That so much of the Lords Message [12th November] as relates to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill be now considered ;

That the Promoters of the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bills in the present Session ; and the Petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;

That the Bills shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day.

That there shall be deposited with each Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session ;

That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read ; That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.] Hon. Members : Object.

To be considered tomorrow.

King's Cross Railways Bill

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session ; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;

That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day ;

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session ;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been

Column 558

presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) ;

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the Session 1988-89 which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session ;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1988-89 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session ;-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

To be considered tomorrow.

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill

[Lords]

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session ; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session :

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time ;

That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session ; That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.] Hon. Members : Object.

To be considered tomorrow.

Killingholme Generating Stations(Ancillary Powers) Bill

[Lords]

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [ Lords ] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session ; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;

Column 559

That, since no Petitions remain against the Bill, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee ;

To be considered tomorrow.

Column 560

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT

Local Authorities (Spending)

1. Mr. Sheerman : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of inflation he assumed in fixing his total standard spending for local authorities for 1991-92 ; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten) : Our proposals for the local authority finance settlement take account of what the country as a whole can afford. They do not assume any particular level of inflation. Our proposal for total standard spending is the level needed in cash terms in 1991-92 to provide the standard level of service taking into account all relevant factors.

Mr. Sheerman : Is the Secretary of State aware that most of us know that the level at which the assessment has been pitched is 7.8 per cent? With the current rate of inflation at about 10.9 per cent., even my poor school mathematics suggests that there will be a 3.7 per cent. gap between the assessment and what local authorities will be forced realistically to plan for in their budgets. Is the Secretary of State aware that good local authorities, such as mine, Kirklees in West Yorkshire, will be forced to make drastic cuts in expenditure on essential services, to lay off staff and to push up the poll tax to a rate at which they will be capped? Does he realise what he is doing to good local authorities with his plans?

Mr. Patten : As I recall, the standard standing assessment of the hon. Gentleman's constituency will increase by 18.4 per cent. next year. The level of local authority spending this year represents a 25 per cent. increase in two years. We are proposing an increase of nearly 13 per cent. in the external financing going into local authorities for next year. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should give more taxpayers' money to local government, I should be interested to hear how much more, who will pay for it and whether the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted his figure.

Mr. Thurnham : When my right hon. Friend talks to local authorities, will he remind them of the enormous savings that they can make by cutting waste and inefficiency? The Audit Commission has identified savings of £1.3 billion, of which only half have been achieved, with no help from the Labour party.

Mr. Patten : My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Recently, the Audit Commission suggested that there was scope for savings of about £100 million in energy efficiency. In a study of sickness absence in some London local authorities it pointed out that the six worst could save £27 a year per community charge by reducing sickness absence to Confederation of British Industry average levels. There are substantial savings for local authorities if they listen to the Audit Commission and implement its proposals.

Mr. Gould : Nevertheless, is not it ridiculous for the same Secretary of State in the same Department on the

Column 561

same subject, that is, local government finance, to use two widely differing inflation rates--an artificially low rate for local government spending commitments and the full, true rate of 10.9 per cent. for setting the business rate? Is not it one of the nonsenses that we understand the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will sweep away? Will the Secretary of State support him in that or would he rather resign than do so? Or, will he be back here next week under new leadership to say that the poll tax was, after all, a terrible mistake?

Mr. Patten : I am delighted to discover that, despite a recent outbreak of democracy in the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman is still in his present slot--I think more or less. Let me say something about the comparisons that he made. Thanks to the uniform business rate, businesses will not be clobbered by high-spending Labour authorities, as they used to be. Over the past decade, businesses have regularly been fleeced by Labour local authorities, which is why their rates bills have gone up by more than the rate of inflation year after year. The hon. Gentleman is still remarkably coy about telling the House by how much he thinks the external financing of local authorities should have been increased next year and he should tell us where that money would come from.

River Thames

2. Dr. Goodson-Wickes : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority about the condition of the River Thames and its tributaries in London.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier) : It is for the National Rivers Authority to decide how best to use its statutory powers in order to secure acceptable river quality standards.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes : I congratulate the Government on setting up the NRA and thereby tackling problems long neglected. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the sorry state of the River Wandle, which flows through my constituency. That river will not be familiar to many hon. Members, but it is a tributary of the Thames once described as the busiest industrial river in the country. Will my hon. Friend give material encouragement to those of us who are striving locally to upgrade and improve the river?

Mr. Trippier : I compliment my hon. Friend on taking the personal initiative of bringing together the local authority, voluntary groups and the NRA in a group that I feel should be affectionately known as the "Wandles of Wimbledon". I am extremely keen to encourage the NRA to help my hon. Friend in whatever way it can. I recommend that he makes contact with the regional manager of the NRA. Whatever help it renders will be made easier as a result of the substantial increase in funding that we announced last week.

Mr. Tony Banks : Will the Minister pay tribute to the London county council and the Greater London council for all the work that they did to ensure that the Thames is probably the cleanest urban river in Europe? The efforts by people in Newham to clean up the River Lea were spoilt by the dumping of a large amount of industrial oil into the

Column 562

river. How many prosecutions have been taken out in the past 12 months against the irresponsible people who still pollute our rivers in London?

Mr. Trippier : I cannot give the specific number that the hon. Member seeks now, but I shall write to him on that matter. He will know that the NRA, which the Government were responsible for setting up, took action only the day after it was formed against the Shell oil company for polluting the River Mersey with oil from a fractured oil pipe and the company was subsequently fined £1 million. That made everybody sit up. There have been several similar examples throughout the year and they will continue.

I am most reluctant to single out the GLC for praise, but several initiatives have been taken, not least by the water companies and the NRA, which have played a significant part in cleaning up the Thames.

Mr. Jessel : Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of my constituents who care deeply about the environment of the historic and beautiful stretch of the River Thames at Twickenham will be most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment for calling in a planning application to construct a large food shop beside the Thames, a plan that the autocratic Richmond upon Thames council had intended to push through against the wishes of a large majority of my constituents?

Mr. Trippier : My right hon. Friend is happy to accept my hon. Friend's congratulations and is most grateful.

Community Charge and Housing Benefits

3. Mr. Illsley : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the increase in rates support grant for 1991-92 will be identified to cover the cuts in the direct subsidy payable to local authorities to cover community charge and housing benefits ; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo) : The estimated cost of the change to local authorities inEngland is £68 million. The Government propose to increase the moneys that they provide by about £3 billion, or nearly 13 per cent. The change is more than adequately provided for.

Mr. Illsley : Is the Minister aware that in Barnsley the amount of direct subsidy has been reduced by about 3 per cent? Is he further aware that at the same time its revenue support grant has decreased from £28 million to £25 million, at a time when the authority has to deal with the effects of the Environmental Protection Act and other legislation that comes on stream next year as well as with pay rises, some of which have already been agreed, of 9 per cent? How can the Minister identify in that settlement where Barnsley has received adequate resources to fund community charge benefit? How does he expect the authority to set a poll tax in the face of all the reductions in grant?

Mr. Portillo : The hon. Gentleman makes partial use of his statistics and I shall give him some others. The standard spending assessment for Barnsley--that is the amount that we consider it appropriate for Barnsley to spend--has been increased by 19 per cent. The total amount of external finance from the Government has been

Column 563

increased by 8 per cent. I explained to the hon. Gentleman in my main answer that an extra £3 billion will be provided to local authorities next year and that that is nearly 13 per cent. extra. It is clear that the rate of inflation between April next year and the following April will be in single figures. All the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have been well and truly catered for.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Will not my hon. Friend be a little more honest with the House?

Hon. Members : Oh!

Mr. Speaker : Order.

Mr. Winterton : I said, "a little more honest", Mr. Speaker, over my hon. Friend's use of the term "external finance". Is not my hon. Friend confusing the uniform business rate contribution with what in the past have been moneys given under rate support grant, and basically supporting the view of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley)? Is not it true that many areas have suffered a substantial reduction of the sum that they received from central Government under the RSG and that that is being masked by the increase in the business rate contribution, which, instead of coming from local government to local government, is coming from central Government?

Mr. Portillo : I should have thought that the important feature is the total moneys that local authorities will receive from central Government sources, which now include the national non-domestic rate. In Macclesfield, the increase is 19 per cent. That is because the people of Macclesfield will not be expected to put £50 each into the safety net next year. That gives Macclesfield a magnificent opportunity to set a low community charge next year.

Mr. Soley : Did the Minister discuss with his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning the housing benefit implications of that policy? Given the announcement made by his hon. Friend only the other week, it will have a catastrophic effect on the leaseback scheme of private houses to both housing associations and local authorities. Does not the Minister realise that many more families will be pushed into bed-and- breakfast accommodation and that the bill for that will be passed on to the poll tax payer? We have the absurdity of the Government ending a scheme that they wanted to encourage while at the same time increasing housing benefit and poll tax bills. Is not it time that the Department began to talk to individual Ministers within it and came out with a coherent policy instead of a contradictory one?

Mr. Portillo : I see nothing catastrophic or harmful to local authorities, local authority tenants or community charge benefit claimants in what we propose. The amount of direct subsidy is being reduced from 97 to 95 per cent., and the balance is being made good within the SSAs, which have risen by an enormous amount, as even the Opposition must admit.

Mr. John D. Taylor : Will the Minister take the opportunity of clarifying the confusion in my constituency about the community charge?

Mr. Tony Banks : Poll tax.

Mr. Taylor : The poll tax. The Conservative party in Northern Ireland has said that the poll tax is good for us

Column 564

in Northern Ireland and that it wants to extend it to Northern Ireland. On the other hand the aspirant leader of the Conservative party said today that he wanted to abolish it in Great Britain. What is the future of the poll tax?

Mr. Portillo : The Government's policy is that the community charge applies in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland.

Community Charge

4. Mr. David Nicholson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in collecting the community charge in Coventry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) : At the end of September, 82 per cent. of charge payersin Coventry had begun paying. No doubt that figure will move towards 100 per cent. during the next five months.

Mr. Nicholson : May I, on behalf of, I hope, the whole House, congratulate my hon. Friend on his welcome appearance at the Dispatch Box?

Whatever legitimate arguments there may be among some of us about the financial arrangements for the new system this year, we are all agreed that taxation should be collected and that it should be paid. Does not my hon. Friend agree that Coventry has done rather well, despite the opposition of some Coventry Members? Of course, it has not done quite as well as Taunton Deane in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of law- abiding people deeply resent the prospect of having to pay more next year because of those who default? Should not the capping mechanism take that into account?

Mr. Key : Of course, it is true that both Taunton Deane and Salisbury have done rather better than Coventry. Some 94 per cent. of people have started paying and some 50 per cent. of the projected yield has been collected. It is also true that the poorest will suffer if people such as Members of Parliament do not pay their community charge.

I pay tribute to the great city of Coventry, especially on a very special day for that city, for achieving payment of its community charge very close to the national average.

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Nellist-- [Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] Order.

Mr. Nellist : I join the Minister in marking the fact that, 50 years ago tonight, some 600 people died in Coventry and several thousand houses were either damaged or destroyed. Of all the remarks made about Coventry that the Tories could have made today, of all days, the remarks about defaulters by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) were the last that we expected.

Is the Minister really so confident that Coventry is the only city where, since 11 July, defaulters have appeared in large numbers in the magistrates courts--100 people a day in July, 200 a day in August, 500 a day in September and 1,000 a day in October and November? They were dragged before the courts because the Tory poll tax in Coventry and everywhere else is the most unpopular tax in the

Column 565

country. Is the Minister also confident that in two weeks' time his new leader will have him at the Dispatch Box defending the poll tax?

Mr. Key : My city of Plymouth suffered similarly during the last war, so I do not need any lessons from the hon. Gentleman. Coventry began issuing statutory reminders in June and held its first magistrates court hearing in July. It has not encountered any problems with court hearings. After an initially slow start, it increased the number of summonses to 1,000 a week. That figure has now reduced to 500 a week because Coventry has obtained most of the liability orders that it needs.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : Does not the impact of non-payers, especially those who can and should pay but simply will not, concern people not only in Coventry but throughout Britain? This year, sensible limits have been imposed on what local authorities can spend. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that next year, it will not be possible for local authorities simply to add on a large sum to make up for those who will not pay?

Mr. Key : It is interesting that under the previous discredited rating system, some 30 per cent. of people needed reminders. It remains true today that those who do not pay increase the burden of local taxation on those who do.

Mr. Blunkett : I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I feel almost diffident about asking my question as it will put his new job on the line. Will he ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks that the people of Coventry agree with the new Secretary of State for Education and Science, who on the radio earlier today suggested that we did not need a leadership election to understand that the Conservative party has a problem with the poll tax? He went on to say that it was a problem that the Conservative party needed properly to address before the general election. Does the Minister agree that the issue needs addressing properly, and if so, how will he do that?

Mr. Key : The problem has been addressed for the past 20 years. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is promising jam tomorrow in much the same way as the Labour party has. It has done nothing but promise jam tomorrow. It is about time that we heard a little more about its plans. It is important to remember that about £3 billion extra external financing has been made available this year, as I am sure the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) will recognise.

Mr. John Hughes rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. If the hon. Gentleman looks down the Order Paper he will see that, with luck, I shall be able to call him later.

Temperature

5. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what predictions his Department is making concerning the rise in average temperature over the next 10 years.

Mr. Chris Patten : The intergovernmental panel on climate change estimates that, as a result of human

Column 566

activities, average global temperatures will increase by 0.2 deg Celsius during the next 10 years. The uncertainty range of that estimate, which does not take account of any natural climate variability, is 0.15 deg and 0.3 deg Celsius.

Mr. Corbyn : Does the Secretary of State agree that, as far as measurement is possible, that is the highest increase in the past 10, 000 years? [Interruption.] This is a serious matter and I hope that the Secretary of State and other Conservative Members will treat it seriously.

Is the Minister aware that that is the highest increase in the past 10,000 years measured from air samples in the Antarctic and that in order merely to contain current levels of concentration we would require a 60 per cent. drop in emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide? In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree that it is necessary to take much stronger and more urgent action to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases and to promote afforestation schemes and the protection of the southern ocean and the savannah grasslands, which are the major areas where the change from carbon dioxide to oxygen takes place?

Mr. Patten : As the hon. Gentleman will doubtless know, there was an extremely successful conference last week in Geneva at which we reached an outline agreement on climate change and global warming, which should lead to the start of negotiations on a climate change convention next February. The science is not quite as the hon. Gentleman described it, but one of the encouraging features of last week's conference was not only the commitment to action by all states, but the fact that, I think for the first time, nobody disagreed fundamentally with the scientific conclusions that were advanced.

Mr. Squire : Does my right hon. Friend recall that recently on this important subject the Labour party committed itself to phasing out nuclear power and to a greater use of coal as against gas, at the same time bringing forward a still earlier timetable for stabilising carbon dioxide? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those do not add up and that that is simply a sign of scientific ignorance among Labour Members?

Mr. Patten : They certainly do not add up. The Labour party is the only organisation outside the executive committee of the National Union of Mineworkers that thinks that coal is cleaner than gas. It has also said that we can secure the environmental objectives and the goals that we want at virtually no cost. That is frankly dishonest and I hope that the Labour party will face up to some of those problems rather more honestly.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : In view of what the Secretary of State has just said, will he confirm that he wanted to accept the European target on the stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions by 2000 and that it was the Prime Minister who intervened to insist that the target date should be 2005? Perhaps while the Secretary of State is answering that question, he will also tell the House whether he agrees with the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that the Government could do better in their action on global warming and that Britain should play a more positive role in the development of EC environmental policy.

Mr. Patten : I know of no one at the Geneva conference last week who did not think that we played an extremely prominent and helpful role in securing agreement. If the

Next Section

Home Page