House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jul 1991

Hansard

House of Commons

Wednesday 10 July 1991

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Midland Metro

(No. 2) Bill--

Read the Third time, and passed.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill

[Lords] Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham Etc.) Bill

Motion made,

That the Promoters of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham etc.) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ;

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

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 present 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 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) ;

Column 932

That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next 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 present 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 present Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

British Railways Bill

That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ;

That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

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 presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table ;

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 present Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

Column 933

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT

Business Rates

1. Mr. Ron Brown : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms failed to pay their business rates last year ; what was the total amount involved ; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) : This information is not available. However, by 31 Marcthis year, charging authorities in England had collected 93 per cent. of their estimated non-domestic rate income for 1990-91 based on returns submitted up to mid-June.

Mr. Brown : As 900 firms per week are going broke, is it not clear that many of them will not have paid their business rates? Yet, to my knowledge, no one has been hounded or gaoled for that. Working people, on the other hand, are expected to pay the poll tax, and if they do not they are hounded and gaoled. Mr. Norman Laws, a pensioner, is in gaol now in the north of England for that reason. That is a disgrace. The Government are not even-handed--they operate double standards. Will the Minister consider releasing people who have been gaoled for non-payment of the poll tax or, better still, will the Government scrap the poll tax immediately and declare an amnesty for everyone involved in a situation of the Government's own making?

Mr. Key : No, Sir.

Mr. John Marshall : Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be less non-payment if a better lead had been given by Members of the House? Is it not a national scandal that law makers should become law breakers, and should not Members of the House who have not paid the community charge be disowned by their Front Bench?

Mr. Key : Of course. Business ratepayers are still liable for what they have not paid, and councils are still pursuing late payers.

City Challenge

2. Mrs. Maureen Hicks : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when an announcement will be made on the successful bids for city challenge.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine) : I intend to announce the successful authorities by the end of July.

Mrs. Hicks : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enthusiasm for city challenge in Wolverhampton, and the growing feeling of optimism and anticipation, with the hope that ours may be one of the 10 successful bids? That would benefit especially the deprived area of Low Hill, in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if city challenge is to be truly successful and achieve our aims we cannot simply leave it to local politicians, but there must be a partnership of the private sector, the voluntary sector and--most important of all--the people who live in

Column 934

communities such as Low Hill, who best know what they wish to receive from city challenge, and what benefits we can give them?

Mr. Heseltine : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. City challenge has evoked a remarkable response from local authorities. We are sure that in the bids that we shall begin to evaluate in the next few days an effective partnership will be demonstrated between the public and private sectors and the views of local people.

Mr. Lewis : The Secretary of State will realise that there will be unsuccessful bids--probably five of them. Those five local authorities will have spent a great deal of money and resources on planning officers and treasury officials to work up their bids. Will the Secretary of State compensate such authorities for the money that they have lost? There are winners as well as losers in city bingo--or rather, city challenge.

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman will understand that, if one has a competition, there tend to be losers, but there is no compulsion at all on local authorities to enter this competition. They are perfectly free not to do so if they wish.

The House will be interested to know that not only did the initial 15 authorities respond enthusiastically, but a further six authorities have submitted bids which they hope we will consider for the first year.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be over-persuaded by the obvious charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). May I draw to his attention the enthusiasm of my own city of Nottingham and the welcome that his colleagues from this House and the other place received only recently when the city clearly demonstrated precisely the partnership between local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors that the Government seek. I hope that Nottingham will be high on my right hon. Friend's agenda.

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I say that, in a charm competition with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks), he has certain obvious disadvantages. However, both my hon. Friends come high on the list of those who are successful advocates of their own areas, and I am grateful to them.

The Gulf (Coral Reefs)

3. Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advantage he has taken of the expertise of Dr. Nigel Downing to make safe from pollution the coral reef areas of Qaru, U Al Maradem, and Kubbar ; what help he has given to Dr. Nigel Downing in getting him to the atolls ; and what were the results of the meeting between the Parliamentary Under- Secretary, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) and Dr. Downing and the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 30 April.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : The hon. Gentleman was present when I met Dr. Downingand he knows that we fully support the contribution that United Kingdom environmental science, including Dr. Downing, can make in addressing the level of environmental damage in the

Column 935

Gulf. To that end, we have helped Dr. Downing with local contacts and travel arrangements to the Gulf and I am glad to say that he is now taking advantage of travel, sponsored by my Department, on board one of the regular Ministry of Defence flights to Al Jubayl and will leave for the Gulf this Friday.

Mr. Dalyell : What close logistical field support can Dr. Downing expect from the Department of Environment through its contacts with the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Baldry : I am glad to say that we have already given Dr. Downing much help. I am ensuring that our embassies in the region are informed of his visit. They will, of course, consider what extra help they and the remaining British forces in the area can provide.

Mr. Allason : I congratulate the Government on their action in protecting coral reefs, and particularly on their recent seizure of 4 tonnes of coral originating in the Philippines. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to protect coral reefs, wherever they occur in the world, and to ensure that coral from the reefs is not imported into the United Kingdom in the form of souvenirs?

Mr. Baldry : We shall continue to make whatever contribution we can, within our means, to supporting these very important habitats throughout the world.

Community Charge

4. Mr. Summerson : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are imposing a surcharge of £20 or more on their community charge payers for the financial year 1991-92 to make up for any non-collection of community charge in the financial year 1990-91.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo) : We do not have precise information on what is being charged this year for the non-collection of community charge last year, but I know of 71 councils which have added £20 or more to this year's charge for non-collection during the current year.

Mr. Summerson : Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the Labour -controlled London borough of Waltham Forest for its imposition of a surcharge of no less than £50.29 on the people of my constituency as a result of its failure to collect a reasonable proportion of the community charge last year? Will my hon. Friend further condemn the Labour leader of that council and those of his Labour colleagues who publicly announced last year that they would be refusing to pay the community charge, thus heaping an even greater burden on my constituents this year?

Mr. Portillo : Yes, I warmly support what my hon. Friend has said, and I feel sorry for his constituents. The London borough of Waltham Forest is number seven on the list of non-collection. Lambeth is top, Liverpool second, Islington third, Newham fourth, Southampton fifth, Birmingham sixth, and Waltham Forest, seventh. Those are the worst performers in collecting the community charge, and they are all Labour controlled. In a similar case in Wirral, the leader of the council--Councillor Nolan, who advocated non-payment, putting £75 on the community charge bill--was thrown out by the

Column 936

electorate even though she had a majority of 1,000. The next election in Walthamstow will not be for the London borough but for my hon. Friend's seat, and he will benefit from the backlash.

Mr. Alton : Does the Minister agree that, in a city where existing services are virtually non-existent as a result of industrial disputes, it is especially offensive that residents are having to face extra bills of £70.99 this year because of the council's failure to run services properly or to collect outstanding community charge payments? Is it not disgraceful that people are, in effect, being charged double? How does he intend to ensure that people will not face the same situation with the new local tax?

Mr. Portillo : I fear that across a variety of taxes and charges, those people who are public spirited end up paying for the feckless. We must demand that local authorities take effective action. It is offensive that an additional surcharge has been made in Liverpool. I am sure that the people of Liverpool will find it offensive that, on some vital issues, the Liberals voted with Militant and thus prevented the Labour council from being as effective as it would otherwise have been.

Mr. Jacques Arnold : Is there not a certain inevitability that, if senior Labour councillors run around inciting people not to pay their community charge, tax evaders will take advantage of that and consider it respectable not to pay their taxes? Is it not desperately unfair that, as a consequence of the example set by Labour councillors, ordinary law-abiding people have to pick up the tab?

Mr. Portillo : Quite honestly, I put not paying the community charge, and advocating that, on the same moral plane as fare dodging or shoplifting from supermarkets. It amazes me that Labour Members who advocate non-payment are not thrown out of the Labour party by the leadership. Despite all the fuss that is made about the hard left, some Labour Members are still advocating non-payment.

Mr. Gould : Was it not the Prime Minister who described the poll tax as "uncollectable" and was it not because the Secretary of State and the Minister agreed with him that they decided that the poll tax had to go? Why are the Minister and his colleagues still trying to make political capital out of the difficulties faced by local authorities, especially those in urban areas with highly mobile populations? Why does the Minister not acknowledge the anxieties expressed by the Audit Commission about the problems created for the judicial system and the whole of local government- -problems that are intrinsic to the poll tax and are therefore the Government's responsibility? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman be helpful to local government for a change, and begin by abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution rule which carries high administrative costs with virtually no revenue gain?

Mr. Portillo : The hon. Gentleman cannot shuffle off his reticence about his hon. Friend's advocacy of non-payment. He constantly tries to escape from his responsibility not only to denounce that but to lead a campaign within the Labour party to have those people thrown out.

On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, I can tell him that the collection rate on average has been about 90 per

Column 937

cent. We are talking here about Labour authorities with collection rates as low as 67 per cent. in Lambeth and 68 per cent. in Liverpool and Islington. Labour councils have failed to collect and Labour leaders have advocated non-payment.

Urban Development Corporations

5. Mr. Wareing : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest detailed schedule for the winding up of urban development corporations.

Mr. Heseltine : I have no precise timetable. I will consider the situation of each urban development corporation in the light of circumstances.

Mr. Wareing : In view of the Government's stated enthusiasm for democracy in eastern Europe, can we take it that when the UDCs are wound up, democratic forms of government will take over? The Merseyside development corporation has done a moderately fine job in the area. Will it come under the auspices of an elected council, such as the previous Merseyside county council, which, before its demise, had the support of politicians of all parties in the locality?

Mr. Heseltine : The UDCs established no new principles that were not built into the new town movement. From the beginning, it was clearly established that when the UDCs made good the deficiencies of largely Labour -run local authorities, the areas concerned would be returned to local democratic control.

Mr. Holt : I thank my right hon. Friend for the Teesside development corporation which, more than anything else, has been responsible for the transformation from the smokestack industries of the north-east to the high -tech industries of today. Would not the advancements be even greater were it not for the lunatics on Langbaurgh council, who recently turned down a private sector scheme worth £50 million of investment which would have brought 400 jobs to one of the most hard-pressed parts of the region? The Labour council turned the scheme down because it preferred unemployment.

Mr. Heseltine : The whole House will be deeply shocked by my hon. Friend's story, but I must support him by saying that the urban development corporation on Teesside will, in the near future, be seen to have given rise to the most exciting rebirth of enterprise and activity on Teesside probably seen in this country this century.

Derelict Land

6. Mr. Ted Garrett : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of derelict land still remain in Northumberland and Tyneside which qualify for financial assistance for reclamation.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young) : The derelict land survey of 1988 recorded nearly 3,000 acres of derelict land that were considered to justify reclamation. Financial assistance for the reclamation of derelict land in Northumberland and Tyneside is available through derelict land grant or the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation and it is estimated that since the survey about 900 acres have been reclaimed.

Column 938

Mr. Garrett : Is the Minister aware that this scheme was running long before the Government's 12-year rule and has been running all those years with moderate success? He may not be aware of the fact, but the last pit heap to the west of Newcastle has now been levelled out. He probably is aware that much of the reclamation of the industrial dereliction in Northumberland and Tyneside has now been virtually completed. Will the Minister direct the resources that have now been released from the projects in those two areas to the cleaning up of the pollution on the beaches in Durham which is still caused by mining extraction?

Sir George Young : I understand that the ancestry of the derelict land grant goes back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was at the Department of the Environment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Resources are available for derelict land grant in his constituency. About £4 million is available for spending in Northumberland and Tyneside. On top of that, about £11 million is available for spending through the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation. I will ensure that both know of the specific claim on that grant that has been made in the House this afternoon.

Environment White Paper

7. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the progress of implementation of the policies of "This Common Inheritance".

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier) : We continue to make excellent progress. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Monday that we will publish a full annual progress report later this year.

Mr. Hughes : I welcome the progress that the Government have made and their green words, but is there not a long and large gap between their words and their actions? In "This Common Inheritance" the Government said that one of the greatest environmental problems facing the world was global warming, but three months ago the Select Committee on Energy and this month the House of Lords European Select Committee roundly criticised the Government for their inadequate efforts on energy efficiency. When will the Government's actions match their words?

Mr. Trippier : I am surprised at the churlish attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman. Whatever praise there was was incredibly limp wristed and weak kneed, which is typical of the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman should look to cleaning out his own party's back yard. It beggars belief that any party should try to convince the electorate that it is serious about reducing carbon dioxide levels when it has pledged to scrap the nuclear programme and replace it with coal-fired energy, which would bring about a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide.

Mr. Adley : Does my hon. Friend recall my vain attempts in Standing Committee to include noise within the ambit of the Environmental Protection Bill? Now that the Department of Transport has at last issued a new document which includes concern about noise, will my hon. Friend do one thing for me? He is presumably aware

Column 939

that his Department part-funds the Airfields Environment Federation. Will he agree to meet its director with me and with a Minister from the Department of Transport so that we can try to get to the bottom of the problems which have been caused in the past by interdepartmental wrangling on the problem?

Mr. Trippier : I shall be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any colleague from the Department of Transport whom he may wish me to meet. Obviously, I do not subscribe to the wrangling that takes place between various Departments on environmental issues. The truth is that one can hardly get a razor blade between us.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : Given the commitments to the water industry in "This Common Inheritance", will the Minister explain why there has been slippage on every area of investment in the water industry's core services but an increase in spending on management?

Mr. Trippier : The hon. Lady should take this opportunity to recognise that the highest standards which are being achieved are the result of the Government's having established the National Rivers Authority. The fact that the Government privatised the water industry has allowed it to undertake a £28 billion programme. The hon. Lady and the House should be reminded that the last Labour Government savagely cut the amount of money that they gave to the water authorities. Their term in office was an absolute disgrace.

Miss Emma Nicholson : In this context, will the Minister pay tribute to the fine results of South West Water, which were recently announced by its chairman who, through privatisation, has managed to re-energise South West Water by pouring truly massive investment into the infrastructure, particularly in the Bideford area, which had never happened before?

Mr. Trippier : I am happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the efforts of South West Water. I repeat the point that I made earlier--that part of the £28 billion now available to be spent during the next 10 years by South West Water is money that certainly could not have been drawn from Her Majesty's Treasury, where such a proposal would have had to take its place in the queue with other competing and serious demands for money for health, education and so on. We have achieved that investment programme by taking the courageous step of privatising the water industry, and it is a success.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

8. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. Key : The introduction of competition into local authority services has produced demonstrable gains in efficiency and value for money, and I am actively considering ways of extending the range of services subject to compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. Cryer : Instead of wasting resources on compulsory competitive tendering, which denies those citizens who are affected the right to democratic accountability through their local councillors, why does the Department of the Environment not spend resources on protecting and helping local authorities by checking the list of banking

Column 940

institutions that it sends to every local authority and finding out about banks such as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which appears on the current list issued by the Department of the Environment? The Department encouraged local authorities to invest in shabby concerns without knowing anything about them at all, which has resulted in the loss of millions of pounds invested by local authorities on the advice of the Minister's Department. Why does he not do something about that instead of helping seedy contractors to reduce the standard of democracy?

Mr. Key : The compulsory competitive tendering process has produced enormous gains for consumers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's citizens charter will do even more. My Department issues no list of such banks. As the hon. Gentleman should know, a list is issued by the Bank of England. I have carefully looked at the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made in points of order yesterday and there is no truth in them.

Mrs. Roe : Is it not ironic that the Government's policy on compulsory competitive tendering for council services, which was fought so hard by the Labour party, should now be the only policy that is saving the ruling Labour group on Liverpool council from the terrible mess into which it has got both itself and the city?

Mr. Key : We are delighted at the Labour party's late conversion to the benefits of compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. O'Brien : When do the Government intend to introduce quality into contracted-out services? So far, they have targeted only the number, size and value of contracts--quality of services has not been targeted. Before there is any extension of compulsory competitive tendering, will the Government ask Birmingham univeristy to study the quality of services provided as a result of compulsory competitive tendering? We need good- quality services for all the people who depend on local governent services.

Mr. Key : Quality is one of local authorities' considerations in setting the criteria in awarding contracts. It is entirely up to them to set the standards of quality, and I repeat that my right hon. Friend's citizens charter will deal with that issue afresh.

Mr. Squire : Is not it strange that a decision that in the private sector is a matter of fact--that it is more efficient and beneficial to employ people in house rather than to bring in outside contractors--has for the Opposition become an ideological obsession? Until they are seen to be acting in the interests of the users rather than of those working in local government, do not they forfeit any right to be considered an alternative Government?

Mr. Key : My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition are split down the middle on the issue--sometimes they find it convenient to support the idea, but sometimes they find it convenient to rail against it. They have no solution of their own, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Public Rented Sector

9. Mr. Winnick : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy towards the public rented sector.

Column 941

Sir George Young : Our policy is set out in chapter 7 of the Department of the Environment's 1991 annual report--Cm. 1508.

Mr. Winnick : Why should so many people be denied adequate rented accommodation? I think that hon. Members probably receive more letters about housing and the need to be rehoused than on any other subject, so why should people be penalised because they cannot afford to buy and because the chance of getting a council house is now so remote? When Ministers go home in their chauffeur-driven cars--usually to one of their palatial homes --do they notice, two or three minutes from here, people living in squalor on the streets? They are some of the victims of the Government's housing policy.

Sir George Young : On the second point, the hon. Gentleman should know that more progress in helping people who sleep rough in London has been made in the past six months than in the whole history of the capital city. As for homeless people, I note with interest that there are 74 homeless households in Walsall in temporary accommodation, but that Walsall has 989 empty dwellings.

Mr. Sumberg : How high will council rents in my constituency have to rise to compensate for the disastrous decision made by the Labour- controlled council in Bury to invest all its resources--about £6.5 million--in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Is not that decision an appalling indictment of the Labour leadership in Bury, and are my constituents not entitled to know why it occurred because it has ruined the chances of good services in my constituency for years to come?

Sir George Young : Of course, one sympathises with the charge payers in my hon. Friend's constituency, but the responsibility clearly rests with the local government leaders who took such a decision.

Mr. Soley : When answering this question it will be appropriate for the Minister to remember that today there is a major lobby of Parliament by homeless people following the sleep-out night earlier this week. It is also appropriate for him to remember the Duke of Edinburgh's report which said that about 1.7 million to 1.9 million homes have been lost from the rented sector--about half of them from the public sector--in the past 10 or 11 years. Will the Minister give a more definitive answer to the question, because the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), explicitly expressed the view that councils should no longer provide housing. Does the Minister agree? How soon does he envisage council house provision coming to an end?

Sir George Young : The Government have made it absolutely clear that they look to the housing association movement to provide new affordable homes to rent. They expect local authorities to devote their resources to improving and modernising their stock, and local authorities are now spending twice as much in real terms on improving their stock as they did 10 years ago. That seems a sensible division of responsibility.

Column 942

Local Government Finance

10. Mr. Simon Coombs : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities would have been capped in 1991-92 if the £15 million limit on expenditure had not been in force.

Mr. Portillo : We now announce our capping criteria in advance. The result is that most councils take care to set budgets which will not be capped. Had capping applied this year to councils with budgets under £15 million, many of them, I am sure, would have set lower budgets than they did, to the benefit of community charge payers.

Mr. Coombs : Is it not good news for hundreds of thousands of community charge payers that the abolition of the £15 million limit on expenditure will force many councils to exercise proper restraint on their future expenditure? Can my hon. Friend quantify the harm already done to community charge payers?

Next Section

Home Page