House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Mar 1993

Hansard

Archives

Research

HOC Publications

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole : we are discussing an amendment.

Mr. Pickles : I apologise. I was about to speak specifically to the amendment which relates to the powers of the Secretary of State.

Column 1356

Mr. Jenkin : The concern to which the amendment, in conjunction with the rest of the Bill, gives rise is whether we are in danger of allowing local authorities to undertake activities of a quasi-commercial nature, which the officers or the councillors might purport to be breaking even or even making a profit for the local authority, but which might subsequently result in substantial liabilities for the authority, which would be taken up by the charge payers.

Without wishing to antagonise the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I have to say that we all know local authorities that undertake ambitious schemes that subsequently do not match the financial expectations. Do the Bill and the amendment provide safeguards against incompetence or failure adequately to assess the situation of a potential project?

10.30 am

Mr. Pickles : The assessment comes in partnership between the Government and local authorities, and recognises the needs of the countries that it is designed to help. In other sectors, local authorities may wish to use existing powers in conjunction with new powers and we need to be certain that those powers are not restricted. The intention is to clarify the law and ensure that local authorities have confidence, but, in doing so, we should not take powers away. That is the central point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) may think that the Bill will suddenly open the floodgates and that councils of various political persuasions will be trading throughout the world, but the simple answer is that that will not happen.

Mr. Nigel Evans : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest fears of many residents--I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for clarifying the point that the money will be Government money and that councils will be acting as agents--will be about what the local authority is doing spending the time of its officers and councillors on assisting other countries when there are problems in their council area ? People will feel that councils should be devoting all their time and energy to clearing up the local problems, rather than messing around abroad. The very fact that projects will go to the Government for approval will enable the assistance to be given. Without the approval of the Secretary of State, the assistance might not be given because local authorities would be afraid to get involved.

Mr. Pickles : I am grateful. My hon. Friend has made a number of useful contributions to the debate on the amendment. He has aired the concerns that many members of the public will have. The debate will assure them that that is not the intention of the Bill. It will enable work to be done in partnership. I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution later in our proceedings when we can underline many of the points that he has made so well.

Mr. Bowis : If we are speaking in terms of sharp suits, perhaps I can refer to the elegant curves of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). The debate is following the good lines set out by the debates in our useful Committee stage. With the amendment, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has allowed us to debate again a point that we debated in Committee, to see whether it can be clarified further.

We are talking about the balance that we need to strike between the enterprise, initiative and enthusiasm of local

Column 1357

authorities that are willing to give their expertise to parts of the world that need it and the need for the control and sensible use of resources, which is where the Secretary of State comes in. The Bill has that balance right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) confirmed in his intervention. It is important that we get that balance right, because nobody wishes to restrict local authorities to such an extent that they say, "We cannot be bothered if they are not interested in what we have to offer. We wanted to offer this, but they say no, so we shall give up and go to somebody else." Equally, we must take account of the total of resources and the way in which they can and should be used.

Lady Olga Maitland : Does my hon. Friend agree that a local authority, by offering technical know-how and assistance, may gain enormous benefit for its locality by opening up trading links, and that trading links with newly developed eastern European countries can be of enormous benefit to the local businesses of that borough?

Mr. Bowis : My hon. Friend is right. I am not sure of the extent to which the Bill will advance trading links, except that the more that local authorities have links abroad under the auspices of the Bill, the more likely it is that when they go abroad with their expertise, they may be accompanied by local business men. That would be an offshoot, but it cannot be written into the Bill.

Mr. Carrington : I did not wish to intervene again in the debate on the amendment, but I must make it clear that the point is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has made clear, if a local authority is giving assistance, through whatever way, to some other local authority, it will lead to trading links, if only because that other local authority will look to this country for support services, computer services, software services and others. There will be true economic benefits, as well as the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to spend aid money.

Mr. Bowis : That is correct. The benefit may flow back to the specific locality that has been giving assistance or to the country in general.

I am conscious that Madam Deputy Speaker would prefer us to stick closely to the amendment. The key is the role of the Secretary of State and of monitoring and the need to avoid the problem of duplication, along the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). We must also ensure sensible prioritising. Many councils, such as Wandsworth, may have good schemes and experience to offer, but the priority in terms of national spending and national advice may require that one or two of those be selected for this as opposed to subsequent years, and that, again, is where the Secretary of State comes into the reckoning. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) gently prodded the question of what she called junketing and what we in Committee called jollies. We looked for guidance to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. He has great knowledge and experience, which he shared with us. He could take us round the world in a silver car, with the chairman in the

Column 1358

boot--or was it the other way round?--no doubt from county hall, or to the Nicaraguan airlines office. I say this with great benevolence.

Mr. Tony Banks : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowis : I had a feeling that I might have to give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Banks : For the sake of the record, I should inform the hon. Gentleman that I was the only chairman of the Greater London council who never made a visit abroad. It was not so much that I did not want to do so but that I felt that, as the GLC was threatened with abolition, if I went abroad something nasty would happen to it in my absence.

The House is perhaps not the best place to discuss trips abroad. We have not many lessons to teach people in terms of abstinence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would no doubt have said about House of Commons visits abroad, if he had been here in his usual place, "They never go fact finding to Greenland in the middle of winter".

Mr. Bowis : I am sure that we shall be visiting Greenland next. I was not criticising the hon. Gentleman. Had it had the opportunity at the time, I would have recommended that the entire GLC was sent off to a remote desert island where it could give advice to the local monkeys. London would then have been a happier place sooner than it eventually became one. Let me leave that subject on the happy note of unanimity across the Floor of the House.

My hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Brentwood and Ongar spoke about local opinion. We want to ensure, of course, that local opinion supports the various measures that are undertaken. The main funding will be recouped from national and international sources, but there will be some on-costs. If, for example, a council officer is seconded to carry out work in another country, some sacrifice will be made by the local community. It is important that the local community gives its full support to such work or there could be resentment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, we want to ensure that we avoid the flavour-of-the-month mentality. I am sure that at the moment any project involving Bosnia or Somalia would have the wholehearted support of a council, while similar projects for Cambodia or Bulgaria would not. On the other hand, perhaps we should be sending people to those countries. By the time that Bosnia is in a position to accept help, it may not be headline material and another sad part of what was Yugoslavia may have come to the fore. I support the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire) : It has been said that the powers that local authorities already have to provide assistance overseas may be endangered by the Bill. Indeed, it has been suggested that such powers make the Bill unnecessary. For reasons that I shall explain, the Government believe that authorities do not have such powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) would be saying fortissimo, that is precisely why the Bill is before the House. There is no reason why authorities that are already undertaking activities for which they believed they had powers--that is, prior to the passage of the Bill--will be prevented from continuing them when the Bill takes its place on the statute book. The Bill will give them formal, legal powers.

Column 1359

The amendment, which was moved by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), is designed to introduce a without-prejudice clause. The argument for it is that, by providing a specific power to give overseas technical assistance, the Bill will remove local authorities' existing ability to undertake such work on the basis of discretionary powers, such as section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, or of other specific powers such as the power under section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the promotion of economic development.

That is one concern to local authority associations that was not discussed in detail in Committee. The reason for that is that while stressing that the Government remained unconvinced of the need for such a clause, I agreed to review the matter if the local authority associations gave us further information. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West then properly withdrew his amendment.

My officials met officials from the associations, both immediately after the Bill's consideration in Committee and earlier this week, and the associations will let us have the necessary further information in time for the Bill's consideration in Committee in another place.

10.45 am

I shall restate my undertaking. I shall review the case for a without- prejudice clause seriously as soon as the associations are able to produce the further information that they have promised. In the meantime, it may be helpful if I set out as clearly as possible why, on the basis of the information that is to hand, I am opposed to a without-prejudice clause.

Section 137 of the 1972 Act permits an authority to incur expenditure which in its opinion is in the interests of, and will bring direct benefit to, its area or any part of it, or to all or some of its inhabitants. However, that power is limited. First, an authority may not rely on the section for a purpose on which it is authorised to incur expenditure by any other power, whether the power is conditional or unconditional. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the direct benefit to the authority's area, or any part of it, or to all or some of its inhabitants must be commensurate with the expenditure incurred under section 137. I do not see how incurring expenditure in providing advice and assistance to overseas bodies can be of any direct benefit to the inhabitants of an authority's area, let alone a benefit that is commensurate with the amount spent.

Section 33 of the 1989 Act gives authorities the power to take such steps as they consider appropriate for promoting the economic development of their areas.

Mr. Tony Banks : The Minister is taking up the point that was made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). It is a matter that could lead to a legal argument. If, for example, information or assistance had been provided under section 137 and there was a spin-off in terms of contracts coming back into the area of the local authority that had provided that information or assistance, it could be argued that there was a direct benefit to the people living in the area controlled by the authority. Section 137 gives an open power to local authorities, and it would always be possible to find a lawyer to argue that there was direct benefit to the local authority as a result of assistance given to an overseas authority.

Column 1360

Mr. Squire : The hon. Gentleman highlights why we need the Bill, which clarifies and spells out the relevant powers of local authorities. We are discussing a narrow but important point and I reiterate my willingness to listen to the massed ranks of lawyers, if such a body can be imagined, as they advise me whether a without-prejudice clause is necessary.

Mr. John Whittingdale (Colchester, South and Maldon) : Does my hon. Friend agree that section 137 has been used by socialist local authorities to divert ratepayers' funds to help a wide variety of extremist, lunatic fringe groups? It is perhaps not surprising that there is a degree of suspicion on the part of the ratepayer whenever the section is mentioned. One of the benefits that will stem from the Bill is the recognition that the involvement of local authorities in overseas assistance is entirely legitimate and welcomed by the Government.

Mr. Squire : My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Were we to develop it, we would take ourselves back over much of the history of the past 15 years or so. Fortunately, all the signs are that local authorities in general are much more responsive now than they were during the time to which my hon. Friend directly and properly referred. He is right, however, to suggest that there is a balance to be struck. In recognition of that, the Bill introduces some restraints and restrictions so that council tax payers, as they will be in a week's time, will have the knowledge that they will be properly protected.

Mr. Jenkin : The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made an interesting intervention. He highlighted the possibility that local authorities might seek a contractual relationship with local authorities in eastern Europe to provide services, or to manage services, in the areas covered by those authorities. My concern is that there are not sufficient checks and balances to ensure that such work is undertaken on a commercial basis. Would that work, under the Bill, be acceptable trade in which a local authority might engage?

Mr. Squire : Most of the activity that is covered by the Bill would be funded, in effect, by one or more know-how funds ; in other words, the Bill does not provide funding. Where that is not the position, upper limits are spelt out that apply to the moneys that a local authority will be able to incur over and above the sum that is being funded by one or other of the know-how funds.

I was referring to section 33 of the 1989 Act. There are various restrictions on the power contained in that Act and the regulations made under it.

Mr. Jenkin : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Squire : Yes, but I want to make progress.

Mr. Jenkin : I apologise to my hon. Friend ; I am grateful to him for giving way again. We all know of occasions when it emerges that local authorities have taken part in what has subsequently been regarded as unlawful trade. I thought that that was the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I am still not clear whether the Bill interferes with the rights of, or restrictions on, local authorities. Does it change the nature of the rules that might allow local authorities effectively to trade with counterparts in eastern Europe? Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Column 1361

Mr. Squire : The Bill would state in law what was previously believed to be the law, under which a number of local authorities were carrying out activities--until one of the flotilla of lawyers, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West referred, drew attention to the error. The important point is that to the extent that local authorities are involved overseas, the Bill makes it clear that it must be in areas in which those authorities have expertise. They must genuinely be able to demonstrate that they have that expertise within their own ranks. I think that that is probably the best assurance on restraint that I can offer my hon. Friend.

I find it impossible to imagine how the power under the 1989 Act, which permits an authority to take steps to assist in the setting up of a commercial undertaking in the authority's area, and the creating of opportunities for employment in that area, can be said to give an authority power to provide an overseas body with advice and assistance. Surely the point of the Bill is that there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of using the existing power for overseas technical work. The Audit Commission has taken the view that there are no existing powers for technical assistance--otherwise, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), there would be no need for the Bill. It is difficult to envisage the purpose of a without-prejudice clause relating to certain powers, when there are substantial grounds for doubt that those powers exist.

However, to meet the concern of the local authority associations that small -scale technical assistance work arising out of, and incidental to, other links with overseas communities--such as the traditional town twinning with which hon. Members will be well acquainted--should not require consent under the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State proposes to give a general authorisation for such work below an approved threshold, which is twice such expenditure in the previous financial year or that planned for the current year.

I will deal briefly and succinctly with the points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West cannot tempt me down the road of discussing the Property Services Agency this morning. I urge him to await the outcome of the current inquiries and not to believe everything that he reads in The Guardian --indeed, particularly everything that he reads in The Guardian.

The hon. Gentleman asked me two questions. The first related to what would happen to the existing powers under section 137 when the Bill is enacted. The short answer is nothing ; they will continue. As I have made clear, existing powers under that section cover technical advice and assistance.

The second and important question was about what happens to work already under way as a result of a local authority's interpretation of section 137. Again, the answer is nothing. That work is currently taking place in the absence of clear powers, but my right hon. and learned Friend is ready to offer sanction for such work during the passage of the Bill, should that prove necessary. Once the Bill is enacted, work already under way will continue under the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends rightly raised the legitimate concern that existing work might be threatened, but I am happy to assure them that that is not the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), without necessarily knowing it, hit the bullseye when he spoke about Hungary. You know,

Column 1362

Madam Deputy Speaker, that any reference to persons outside this Chamber would be out of order, so I certainly would not make one. However, hon. Members may be interested to know that among those advising me this morning, and not located many miles away, is a visitor from Hungary. He has been following our activities as part and parcel of the Department's work with Hungary and other countries. I am certain that he would have been fascinated to hear our comments this morning. I am also certain that he would conclude, as did my hon. Friend, that although Hungary has little, if anything, to learn from Lambeth, Lambeth may have a significant amount to learn from Hungary.

Mr. Tony Banks : Send in the tanks.

Mr. Squire : It would be tasteless to take up the hon. Gentleman's comment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, echoed by my curved hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) --but who am I to speak?--spoke of the importance of striking a balance between a reasonable check on the activities of local authorities and not snuffing out the good, creative ways in which local authorities are already assisting so many other countries, especially in central and eastern Europe. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not our intention to do the latter and nothing within the Bill would do that. On the contrary, I hope that the Bill will bring the opportunities and advantages available to the attention of those local authorities that are not yet involved in this important work. A without-prejudice clause is unnecessary, would achieve nothing, and would reintroduce an element of confusion into an area that the Bill would sort out and clarify once and for all. In the light of my undertaking to consider the matter further, I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks : I am very much encouraged by the Minister's response. Both he and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that the amendment was unnecessary. There are still matters that need to be resolved, but from what the Minister said I understand that the local authority associations will continue to talk to him about them. It is for those associations to demonstrate that a without-prejudice clause is required. I feel confident that if they can do that to the Minister's satisfaction, the necessary amendments will be introduced in another place.

The Bill has all-party support. All those involved in it understand that there is no intention to limit the ability of local authorities or to make the position more difficult for them, but, on the contrary, to facilitate what has been happening and to encourage further developments. I take what the Minister said as an encouraging sign that if there is an omission from the Bill that would frustrate the activities to which we have been referring, he will rectify that. I am still a little concerned about the questions surrounding section 137 of the 1989 Act, which was, perhaps, passed in happier times. It is a broad section which gives very wide powers. The Minister did not mention section 142 of that Act, which relates to the provision of information. That is also widely interpreted by local authorities, as it was meant to be, and it can be used for the provision of information overseas. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said that such

Column 1363

activities should be generally co- ordinated. The hon. Gentleman can afford to be elegantly dressed. While he was speaking, I took the precaution of checking the Register of Members' Interests, and can understand how he can afford to shop at the best tailors in Savile row, and no doubt he does.

Much needs to be done in terms of co-ordination, and no doubt the Secretary of State will be able to do it. One must commend many local authorities of all political persuasions--I am not as biased as some Conservative Members- -for their pioneering work, and the Bill acknowledges that and encourages and facilitates that process. 11 am

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used the amendment to make a ritual attack on Lambeth. I well understand why he might be suspicious of sharp- suited sales persons. Knowing that he is an adviser to the Saudi International bank, I well understand his concern, given the amount of corruption and palm-greasing that goes on in the area in which he no doubt gives a great deal of advice in the middle east. If the hon. Gentleman is suspicious of a sharp-suited sales person, perhaps he would not be quite so suspicious of a sharp jellaba-dressed gentleman wearing a gold Rolex on his wrist.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned the Greater London council, which is appropriate because we are just approaching the week in which, on 31 March, we will mark the seventh anniversary of its abolition-- [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] That was an entirely predictable response from the Conservative Benches and would not be the response elicited from the great majority of Londoners. I am far more concerned about them than ideologically fixated Conservative Members.

Mr. Robin Squire : As that is such an illustrious anniversary, and in response to the hon. Gentleman's point, in at least the past four or five of the seven years since the GLC's abolition, I have not--as a London Member of Parliament--received one letter from anyone asking me to recreate that monstrosity.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the debate continues, I point out that it is not appropriate to hold either a celebration or a wake.

Mr. Banks : I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it would be pointless writing to the Minister on that particular subject.

Mr. Carrington : I do not want to pursue the abolition of the GLC, but it does raise the interesting point of whether the hon. Gentleman considers that it would be appropriate for the Inner London education authority to give advice under the terms of the amendment and clause. One effect of abolishing the ILEA is universal agreement across all parties that the ILEA's education provision was wasteful and poor, and did not achieve good standards. However bad some boroughs are, the education that they provide now is better--even in the worst of them--than that provided by the ILEA.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. That point is entirely irrelevant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue it and that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not respond.

Column 1364

Mr. Banks : It is unfortunate, Madam Deputy Speaker that your stricture was not applied a little earlier before the hon. Gentleman completed his intervention. It would, of course, be impossible for a now- defunct body to give advice to anyone. As someone who received his education under the Inner London education authority, I thought that it was a wonderful authority. Were the ILEA to be extant, it would give excellent advice.

A strategic authority such as the Greater London council could have given tremendous advice in eastern Europe.

Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent.

Mr. Banks : The hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance of not only the Greater London council but good tailoring.

In the case of emergency services--such as the London fire brigade--that were the responsibility of the GLC, tremendous information was given to overseas authorities. As to waste disposal--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I am also not inclined to permit a trip down memory lane.

Mr. Banks : You old spoil-sport, Madam Deputy Speaker--I said that affectionately, rather than with any reference to chronological order.

London does not have a strategic authority now, but when we have a Labour Government one day soon, one will be established. I was not so much taking a walk down memory lane as pointing out that a strategic authority for London could give advice in many areas. The powers that I mentioned with regard to emergency services have passed to the London fire and civil defence authority, which gives advice overseas and has sent teams to disaster areas to apply the techniques learned under the London county council, the GLC and the LFCDA. That is precisely the kind of advice and assistance embraced by the Bill. The waste disposal authority that took over from the GLC can give information and pass on some of the high technology devised in London to cope with waste disposal from such a large conurbation. Such information would be invaluable and would no doubt be welcomed by authorities in eastern Europe, for example.

Mr. Lester : Waste disposal authorities are covered in the Bill.

Mr. Banks : I mentioned them for the benefit of those who did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Committee with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I am passing on a little light, but not a great deal of heat. In eastern Europe, standards of waste disposal have been appalling in countries such as Albania and Romania. A London authority could teach them a great deal.

Mr. Bowis : It goes wider than that, because international agreements would be needed to solve some of those problems. The hon. Gentleman set up various arguments and then knocked them down himself. Strategic authorities that have a purpose, such as the LFCDA and the authority that brings together waste disposal in various boroughs, are covered by the Bill and can give advice. The hon. Gentleman has demolished his own argument for the need for other strategic authorities, which would be merely wasteful monstrosities and a burden on taxpayers.

Mr. Banks : That does not necessarily follow from the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I referred to a number of

Column 1365

bodies that are engaged in such activities. The hon. Gentleman will remember that they were all grouped under one body when the GLC existed. His argument does not bear logical examination.

Mr. Jenkin : As to waste disposal, some large private sector companies in this country and throughout the European community are extremely good at providing advice. The Bill needs to guard against excessive crowding out of private sector activity by the excessive ambitions of the public sector as embodied by local authorities. The best lesson that eastern Europe can learn from the abolition of the GLC is that it should rid itself of unnecessary tiers of government.

Mr. Banks : I hope that that will not be a lesson that they draw from the abolition of the GLC. I hope that they will draw the lesson that if a country has a constitution, it will not be possible for someone to walk in and abolish a directly elected and democratic body, merely because the Government of the day, particularly the Prime Minister of the day, does not happen to like it. That seems to me to smack more of the Stalinism and totalitarianism from which they have just escaped. If she could be dug up, I suppose that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) would probably go over and give advice to some of the beleaguered democracies in eastern Europe and tell them how to restore Stalinism. They might like it.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is, so to speak, taking off again. Can I bring him back to the amendment?

Mr. Banks : I could not resist the temptation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I blame the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) entirely for provoking me. I can resist everything except temptation.

When the GLC was in being, it worked in concert with the private sector over waste disposal. Correy, the waste disposal company, worked closely with the GLC. One saw its barges going up and down the Thames. The hon. Member for Colchester, North needs to understand a little more of the history of that period of abolition that preoccupied the House for such a long time.

I tabled all these amendments at the request of the local authority associations. The Minister has assured us today that the discussions with the local authority associations will continue and that in the event of their being able to demonstrate beyond peradventure that there is a difficulty, he will introduce the necessary amendments in another place. I am delighted to hear that Lady Flather is to be responsible for taking the Bill through the other place. She has great sensitivity when it comes to both overseas development and local authorities. As I am happy with the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tony Banks : I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 5, leave out or'.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 8, at end insert

or,

Column 1366

Mr. Banks : These amendments test the intention of the Bill to limit its scope to local authorities and the bodies derived from them, as set out in clause 1(7) and (8). Parish, town or community councils are currently excluded from the Bill.

Under the know-how fund technical link scheme, however, proposals have already been received from several parishes. These include Castleton parish council in Derbyshire, in concert with the Peak District national park. Their prospective partners are Skala and Ojcow national parks, both of which are in south Poland. Dulverton parish council in Somerset, in conjunction with the Exmoor national park, have prospective partners in Poland and the Czech Republic. Everyone can immediately see why both Poland and the Czech Republic should be involved with parish councils ; they lie in the area of national parks. Interest has been shown by other parish councils--in the Grampian region, Kent, Lancashire and South Yorkshire. 11.15 am

From this recent display of interest, it will be clear that parish councils are anxious in many cases to offer overseas assistance. By definition, parish councils are very small. Even the largest employs only a few members of staff. What they lack in staff expertise, however, is more than compensated for in enthusiasm and a direct involvement in the community.

In line with the general desire to devolve powers and to involve people down to the lowest level--subsidiarity being the term with which we are most familiar in this place--it is a little puzzling that the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister have not so far shown any great interest in extending the scope of the Bill in that direction. The active involvement of local communities, probably drawing directly on the enthusiasm and expertise of parish councillors and the community, is to be welcomed.

It would help if the hon. Member for Broxtowe and the Minister were to agree to consider further this question, in the light of the interest from parishes in the Government's scheme. We have heard about the upsurge of interest. Areas of involvement in which parishes have expertise have been indentified. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to the amendments.

Mr. Lester : The request for inclusion of this amendment in the Bill is similar to the previous one. I have nothing against parish, town or community councils. My overall view, however, as someone with previous experience of local government, is that it is hard to see how a parish council could employ technical staff and therefore be able to offer technical assistance overseas.

The illustrations given by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West are borne out by my research. Quite by accident I came across such a scheme. Marlborough town council has linked up with Gunjar in the Gambia. I would add, by the way, that Marlborough is a small and attractive town. The town council plays only a part in that role. However, it takes over to Gunjar a team of people, all volunteers, who add classrooms to schools and do all sorts of worthwhile work in the Gambia.

Marlborough has assisted in the most positive way that I can describe. A young man from that community wrote to me. I did not know him from Adam. He said that he would like to come to this country to study hotel and catering skills and asked whether I could help him. I wrote

Next Section

Home Page