House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Mar 1990

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : I wish to raise another important matter--the procedure for appointing the next Archbishop of Canterbury. I do so because the matter is urgent. The archbishop must have notified the Government before the announcement was made on Sunday. Therefore, the procedure for selecting his successor must be well under way. If we allow the matter to rest until the day after the Easter recess, it might be generally assumed that there was no other way to proceed than by procedure that has been used hitherto. The House will know that the normal procedure is that the Crown Appointments Commission puts forward two names and the Prime Minister chooses between them. There is no opportunity for the Church as a whole to be consulted on the matter. As the Church of England is not

Column 247

a democratic body, it does not have a ballot to elect its archbishop, so members of the Church of England have no formal say whatever in the choice of the person who is to lead them. Even though the Church of England is a state Church--I shall come to that later--the House of Commons has no right to say anything about the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yesterday, I asked Mr. Speaker whether it would be in order to ask the Prime Minister about the appointment of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Mr. Speaker said that it was out of order for a Member of Parliament to ask the Prime Minister to answer on matters relating to the royal prerogative. Without going into detail, Mr. Speaker's ruling probably went further than he meant it to. Going to war and signing treaties are done under the prerogative, but we are allowed to question the Prime Minister on those matters. The Clerks may have to issue a statement clarifying the ruling, as President Reagan experienced from time to time during his time at the White House.

Mr. Speaker must have been saying that the Prime Minister is not accountable to Parliament for the advice that she gives to the sovereign on the matter. Therefore, the Archbishop of Canterbury will be appointed by a little commission called the Crown Appointments Commission, the chairman of which is appointed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will make a choice between two candidates, if present procedure is followed. That is how the successor to Dr. Runcie will be appointed.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not simply a bishop in the Church in England ; he is widely recognised as the head of the Anglican community worldwide. Through the Lambeth conference and in other ways, he has spiritual responsibilities that go well beyond, thank God, the political control of the Prime Minister of the day, who exercises neither spiritual nor worldwide responsibilities. We should ask ourselves whether the time has come when we should make a further amendment in procedures that have changed over many centuries to allow the Church to decide who it wishes to be its new archbishop.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West) : Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is right in saying that the Prime Minister must choose between two names submitted to her? Does she not also have a right to name yet another person?

Mr. Benn : The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do how such things work : what is a practice becomes a custom, and then becomes custom and practice. I do not believe that any Prime Minister would reject both names and go for a third. Although the theoretical power of the Prime Minister over the Church, which is exercised by the royal prerogative, is absolute, as is the theoretical power of Parliament over Church Measures and the power of the Crown to reject all our legislation, that does not happen. One can reasonably assume that, unless the procedure is altered, the Church will put forward, through the commission, two names, and from them the Prime Minister will make a choice.

Yesterday, I tabled an early-day motion that I hope will attract wide support, because it is not related in any way to the present Prime Minister. I would, and will, feel exactly the same when my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) exercises similar responsibilities during his first, second, third and fourth Administrations.

Column 248

This time round, the Church should insist upon a slightly new procedure so that the Crown Appointments Commission puts forward one name only.

As the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) has already said, it is true that, in theory, it is open to the Prime Minister to reject the one name and ask for more or to choose someone else. If the Church said that it had thought carefully about its role in relation to the state and decided to put forward one name, the second part of my early-day motion asks for the Prime Minister to convey that name, without comment or change, to the Crown for the formal approval required.

The change I am proposing is modest. When Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister of the Government of which I was a member, he introduced the procedure under which two names were put forward. The unfettered discretion once exercised by Prime Ministers was limited by that new custom and practice. Anyone familiar with Victorian politics will know that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli had an ecclesiastical secretary, and that the excitement about who would be given certain appointments was widely shared and a matter of speculation. Such decisions were entirely in the hands of the then Prime Minister, but all that has changed.

In recent years, I am glad to say, there has been a steady loosening of the control of Parliament and the state over the Church of England. I shall not go into the detail, but when Henry VIII nationalised the Church of England because he was not prepared for a foreign potentate to take more than half his state's revenues, it marked the beginning of a rigid enforcement. In 1662 the Great Ejectment took place, when the dissenters were thrown out of their parishes. In 1662, the Rev. William Benn was ejected from the parish of Dorchester under the Five Mile Act. Whether or not he is my ancestor in physical terms, he certainly is in spiritual and dissenting terms.

The House will know that, in the 19th century, it was not possible for a Catholic to serve in Parliament--it is still not possible for a Catholic priest to serve. It was not possible for a Jew to serve in Parliament. One of the men I most admire, Charles Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, was kept out on the ground that he was an atheist. The House will know that he turned up, would not take the oath and was thrown out. He was re- elected, came back, would not take the oath and was thrown out again. When he came back the third time he said, "All right, I'll take the oath if that's what you want." But he was told, "You can't, you are an atheist," and he was thrown out again. That is how atheists got into the House. I always solemnly affirm, rather than swear, in memory of Charles Bradlaugh. The parliamentary procedure has changed, and in recent years, with the establishment of the Synod, the Church has had far greater self government. We had the recent example of the Clergy (Ordination) Measure when the House wisely decided not to have a confrontation with the Church on the ordination of divorced persons. It therefore reversed a decision that had been taken at3.30 am in July because it knew that, if it pushed its luck too far, the Church of England would seek disestablishment.

I am, of course, a disestablishmentarian, and have been for some time. Now is not the occasion to go into that matter, because my proposal could be contained within the traditions of steady separation that have developed between Church and state. I believe that the establishment

Column 249

of the Church is a much bigger and livelier issue than the House might appreciate. The troubles that have occurred with the blasphemy laws concerning the writings of Salman Rushdie have, in part, derived from the fact that Muslims in Britain ask why they should be a second-class denomination. When a Christian commits an act of blasphemy, he can be punished in the courts, but a Muslim who blasphemes against his faith cannot. The question of blasphemy, a burning issue in some of our cities and worldwide, is inextricably bound up with the continuation of establishment.

I believe that my view is widely shared in the House. I do not know whether a majority hold that view, but from private conversations I know that people in many parties believe that the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he or she may be, is not the right person to choose, even from the limited choice between two candidates, the head of the Anglican community worldwide. I was brought up to believe in that view, which I hold strongly.

I believe that the time will come when the House will want to make a change, and I know that within the Church there is a growing movement in favour of disestablishment. I believe that the role of a bishop and of a Prime Minister are wholly different. I was brought up on the Old Testament, where the conflict was between the kings and the prophets--the kings exercised the power and the prophets preached righteousness. I doubt whether the Bible story would have been quite the same if the kings had appointed the prophets, but that is what we continue to do under the practice of an established Church. I hope that the House will support my early-day motion, so that those in the Church who are anxious about present arrangements realise that there is an alternative open to them now, within the existing law. They can put forward one name only and decline to put forward two names. By doing so, the Prime Minister would have the difficult decision of rejecting the Church nomination and seeking to appoint someone else. As the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West has already said, in law she is entitled to do that, but I do not believe that the Prime Minister would be ready to take such a decision. I hope that I have not abused the debate on the Easter Adjournment, as I believe this is one of the few occasions when a wholly powerless House of Commons can seek to influence events by argument. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), fresh from his triumphs on the desert island--a very good programme--has advocated his argument on the poll tax. We have heard the arguments about Northern Ireland. Since the House has lost all its power to Crown prerogatives, to Brussels and elsewhere, it is now primarily the place where arguments can be put forward. I have advanced my argument in the hope that the House will listen and, above all, that those in the Church will gain the confidence to demand the right to choose their own leader.

5.59 pm

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle) : I offer my wholehearted support for the motion.

Today, I wish to raise a subject which I mentioned during business questions last week and hoped to introduce in a private Member's motion tabled last Friday, but it was not reached : the report of the Department of

Column 250

Trade and Industry inspectors into the House of Fraser takeover. In doing so, I shall refer to the City of London, and I therefore wish to declare my part-time employment with a large firm of accountants there. It is shown in the Register of Members' Interests, but I wish to add that I speak for absolutely no one but myself, as I have always done in the House.

Like my hon. Friends the Members for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark), for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and many other Conservative Members, I feel that, in his noticeably succinct statement of 7 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry failed to explore with sufficient thoroughness all the ramifications of a report which was disturbing in its evidence and damning in its conclusions, the publication of which was long delayed and which has been at the centre of a bitter and long-running public controversy. From the brevity of his statement and what he said in reply to questions, it seems that my right hon. Friend is persuaded that his scope for action is limited.

He said that, as regards misleading the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the legislative stable door has been shut by the Companies Act 1989. However, that is insufficient reason for failing to allow the House a full debate at the earliest opportunity, because too many questions arising from that detailed and highly critical report remain unanswered. Many hon. Members have expressed their frustration that what the DTI inspectors described as the Fayeds' deceit and lies has not been met with their immediate disqualification as directors or, at the very least, with a bar from directorships of other United Kingdom companies or by the Bank of England's withdrawal of authorised banking status for Harrods bank.

I do not intend to take up the time of the House in this short debate by rehearsing those arguments. Instead, I wish to impress on my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House the fact that the House will also want to know more about the manner in which the DTI behaved over the House of Fraser affair and why, in taking character references on the Fayeds, such reliance was placed on the word of individuals and companies, whose vested interest in the Fayeds' success was plain to see. To ask the Fayeds' own merchant bank advisers, who were to receive an advisory fee of well over £3 million in respect of the House of Fraser take-over, whether they knew of any criticism of the Fayeds was like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Those and other questions about the screening of the offeror company and the decision not to refer the bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be debated by the House at an early opportunity. I do not believe that the Easter Adjournment should be postponed for that purpose, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will find time shortly after the recess to enable the House to debate the inspectors' report.

If that debate is not held soon, two otherwise avoidable difficulties may arise. First, the failure to examine the DTI's performance in this sorry episode will make it difficult for that Department to retain the respect it normally deserves. I have no doubts about the excellence of the DTI's contribution to government generally, but the lapses which have occurred over the House of Fraser, as well as Barlow Clowes and the sale of Rover to British

Column 251

Aerospace, need to be explained thoroughly if the DTI, and the regulatory process of which it is a central part, are not to fall into disrepute.

Secondly, the perception that British regulatory standards are beyond question matters crucially to the City of London when it is facing increasing competition from other centres of financial services elsewhere in Europe. The House will be aware of the keen competition between Paris and London for the location of the proposed European bank for reconstruction and development, and of the rapid advances in information technology on the Paris bourse, as that stock exchange seeks to attract business in securities trading which would otherwise be done on the London market.

This is not the time to repeat the arguments for or against the City's big bang, but it is clear that the move to dual capacity, and the need for firms in the City to have a large capital base, have generated a new breed of large financial services groups which lead the way in stockbroking and market making. Changes have also occurred in international banking and bond markets, whereby the leading players in London have increasingly become the huge Japanese and American banks, none of which holds an obvious traditional loyalty to London. Therefore, if our regulatory standards fall into disrepute, much of the financial services business now carried out in London could easily move elsewhere.

To look at the recent downward trend on our surplus invisibles, which I mentioned in the discussion on the autumn statement last November, and at the risk of a recession this year, to which I alluded in the debate on the Queen's Speech during the same month, is to remind oneself that the City of London will need to retain all the worthwhile and profitable business it can find. With that objective in mind, I think that the House would serve the City well if it looked critically at the House of Fraser report soon and demonstrated that lessons can be learned which will reinforce our regulatory standards, and not allow them to become a laughing stock.

6.6 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I am grateful for this opportunity to speak briefly about four issues which concern my constituents, and to argue that it would be helpful to have a shorter Easter recess so that the issues can be discussed more fully. First, like the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I firmly press on the Government the need to look again at the community charge, or poll tax. I say that not just because it takes little or no account of my constituents' ability to pay it, but because of the philosophy behind it, that local government expenditure is excessive and should be cut. That view seems to be totally rejected by the vast majority of my constituents who know only too well that they need the services provided by local government and do not accept that there is waste.

I was appalled when, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) said that the party was over and local government should cut expenditure. I know from my experience of representing other parts of Stockport that the authority has insufficient resources to meet the needs of my constituents in education, social services and public health, or to protect them adequately.

Column 252

Therefore, the philosophy of the poll tax, to encourage people to vote for low-spending authorities, seems totally wrong. If the Government were talking about providing value for money, I should be perfectly happy, but value for money does not necessarily mean that money is not spent. Often, spending less means poor quality services. My constituents want good quality education and public health, and effective social services.

The calculations for the poll tax took little account of local communities' needs. I, and fellow Members representing the Tameside part of my constituency, have repeatedly pressed on Ministers the case for better treatment for Tameside when allocating resources. Secondly, when creating the Denton and Reddish parliamentary constituency, the Boundary Commissioners argued strongly that the one factor which unified my constituency was the Tame valley, which is often referred to in the constituency as the Reddish vale. It does not unify the constituency particularly well in human terms, because people live on either side of it, and crossing from one side to the other for meetings and political activities is often difficult. Reddish vale is a long open space in my constituency. Some years ago, it was threatened by the possibility that, when Greater Manchester was wound up, the land would have to be sold off. We were grateful to Ministers who allowed the land to be passed to Tameside and Stockport local authorities, to be protected as open space. My constituents are now alarmed by a planning application to turn one side of the valley into a ski slope. They are particularly concerned that someone can come along and put in an application without owning the land in total disregard of the needs of the people in the area. My constituents can do nothing except campaign, protest and try to oppose the planning application.

They are upset because there have been repeated attempts to develop one of the few remaining open spaces, an area where people can go to enjoy fresh air within the constituency. They want to find some way in which the area can be permanently protected as open space. Land can sometimes be sold to the National Trust to obtain such protection, but it causes my constituents grave concern that, time after time, they have to mount campaigns to defend Reddish vale. I merely ask the Government to consider ways in which they could defend it. Thirdly, I wish to refer to war loans. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made great play in the Budget statement that he wished to encourage a nation of savers. It is high time that the Government considered the problem that faces the many who became savers to help the Government and invested in war loan. I have in mind especially a Mrs. Charlesworth, who is one of my constituents. She is one of about a third of a million who have war loan.

I ask the Government to tell us when they will find some way of allowing savers to redeem their war stock. I realise that the process is complicated and that it goes back a long way, but at a time when the Government claim that they want to encourage savers and wish to pay off part of the national debt, they should be able to find a device that will make it possible for those who want to get rid of their war loan to do so and to recover a sensible amount, rather than the poor returns that they can obtain if they sell their stock on to others.

I understand that the Government do not want to inject money into the economy at present, so it may be extremely difficult to do what I am urging now. As, however, so

Column 253

many of the provisions set out in the Budget will take effect next year or the year after, it seems that it should be possible for the Government to make an announcement now that, over a period, they will seek ways in which war loan can be redeemed.

Finally, I ask the Government what is happening about nuclear missiles around our shores. Many hon. Members and many others outside this place were pleased when it was announced that international treaties had been signed, with the result that cruise missiles were to go from Molesworth and Greenham Common. Much concern is being caused because it seems that cruise missiles are returning to our shores. I understand that, recently, at least one American submarine was in Portsmouth, and was clearly carrying cruise missiles. It seems that discussions are taking place with a view to cruise missiles being based at Holy Loch. It is possible that they will be on American surface ships that come into Plymouth.

I understand the argument that is advanced by Conservative Members--that, with the changes that are taking place in eastern Europe, we should not rush into an involvement in disarmament until we know what will really happen, and that that will not be possible until a few years have passed. At a time when we might have the opportunity to reduce world tension and to make further progress with the disarmament process, it seems foolish for western nations to be rearming.

Before we adjourn for the Easter recess, there should be a clear statement from the Government on whether it is their policy to encourage the United States to base cruise-launched missiles on submarines and American surface ships which use British ports. It seemed from answers that I received last week from the Secretary of State for Defence that the Government were admitting that that policy was under active discussion. It appears that American ships are carrying cruise-launched missiles and that talks are taking place on whether the American facility at Holy Loch will be converted so that missiles can be serviced in that area.

I hope that, before we adjourn for the Easter recess, it will be possible for the Government to make a statement on whether it is their expectation that sea-launched cruise missiles will be around our shores. Is it right that, instead of having to worry about cruise missiles emerging from Molesworth and Greenham Common on to land, we shall now have to worry about their deployment in the seas around us?

I hope that there will be an opportunity for the Government to make a statement about war loan. I hope also that they will be able to give me an assurance that they are seeking ways of protecting areas such as Reddish vale. Finally, I hope that the Government will produce an alternative to the poll tax.

6.16 pm

Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down) : I urge that the House should not adjourn for the Easter recess because of the deplorable security situation in Northern Ireland. During the past week we have heard, seen or read about further terrorist activities in the Province. Hundreds of homes were destroyed or damaged in Castlederg and in Ballymena when the IRA planted bombs outside the local police station. It is said that one bomb in a car contained

Column 254

about 1,000 lb of explosives. While people in England and Scotland are fighting in debates about poll tax, we in Northern Ireland are fighting for our lives in the face of an evil and callous campaign waged by Republican terrorists. After 20 years of death, mutilation and destruction, all the decent people of Ulster remain steadfast. They will not capitulate to the IRA as a result of Republican murders or atrocities.

The morale of the people of Northern Ireland has been sorely tested by the Government's failure to maintain a relentless onslaught against the terrorists. As the Irish Republic has been the scene of terrorist activity over the years, it would be natural to assume that the Dublin Government would be unequivocal in their support of the forces of law and order operating in Northern Ireland, but logic does not seem to apply to the island of Ireland.

The people of Northern Ireland desire nothing but the friendliest of relations with the people of the Irish Republic. Both peoples share the island of Ireland and, despite the recent legal and political setbacks, I should like one day to see a rapprochement between the people of the two parts of Ireland, with one part consulting the other as a matter of friendly routine. It is surely in the interests of the Irish Republic that it should ensure that it has nothing but the best relations with Northern Ireland.

There is another reason why, I believe, the House should not adjourn for the Easter recess. It, too, affects Northern Ireland. On 13 March, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that the Government had decided to end the electricity tariff subsidy arrangement for the Province. Instead of making a statement in the House and being available for questions from hon. Members on both sides, the right hon. Gentleman made his statement by means of a written answer. Instead of consulting in advance the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, he gave the decision which had been arrived at by the Government in a written answer in response to a question from one of his hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was available to us on a Thursday evening when the matter could not be raised in the House. The decision that he announced was to take effect on 1 April, which is only a few days away. In my opinion, the decision is scandalous. The Secretary of State revealed the real reason for his action when he stated :

"It is clear, moreover, that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and the decision to privatise NIE also have made the link less appropriate."--[ Official Report, 13 March 1990 ; Vol. 169, c. 140. ]

The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the linking of Northern Ireland electricity prices with the highest tariff in England, not the lowest and not the average. That linkage, which was established in 1981, meant a considerable reduction in the price of electricity in Ulster. In his written answer on 13 March, the right hon. Gentleman forecast that Northern Ireland electricity charges would increase by about 8 per cent. on average for 1990-91.

There is no guarantee that prices will not soar--at a time when electricity prices in southern Scotland are likely to be kept down to a reasonable level. The increase will place an intolerable burden on domestic users in the Province who already have to endure the highest cost of living in the United Kingdom. I have formed the opinion that the Northern Ireland Office is indifferent to the plight of the Ulster people. An increase would be a harsh blow

Column 255

not only to domestic users but to industrial consumers in the Province. We must remember that our factories are fighting against all the odds to compete not only with English firms but with those in the European Community as a whole.

On 5 March 1981, the Prime Minister visited Belfast to deal with the crisis created by high electricity charges. She announced that the Government had accepted that the difference in electricity prices between Northern Ireland and England constituted an unreasonable burden on the Northern Ireland community and that electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland should be brought into line with England and "kept there". I emphasise the words "kept there". Nine years later, that assurance has been abandoned by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Let me give some figures for the year ending 31 March which show the contrast between Northern Ireland and the south of Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the standing charge is £41.60 per annum for the current year and the price of electricity is 6.39p per kW. In the south of Scotland, the standing charge is £29.88 and the price per kW is 5.83p. That gap will widen as a result of the deplorable decision, announced by the furtive means of a written answer, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister to examine these issues, which affect the very being of the people of Northern Ireland, and to urge the Secretary of State to review the position.

6.22 pm

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) : I wish to draw the House back to the issue of the poll tax. The Government are likely to need time to examine the impact of the poll tax and to amend the arrangements in a number of ways. First, I should make it clear that I accept that the case for replacing the rates is well supported and that rates provided a rather rough justice, aggravated by the reduction in the rate support grant. But the poll tax provides no justice at all. The Government must address a number of factors as a matter of urgency if we are to achieve even an approximation to justice. First, it is extraordinary that people whose incomes are too low to make them liable to contribute to the central Government Exchequer should nevertheless be forced to pay taxes to their local authority, and there is considerable resentment about that. As the poll tax is basically a flat rate tax and the 20 per cent. rule means that everyone has to pay it, by definition, it falls disproportionately heavily on those with low incomes.

The poll tax is also an incompetent tax. It is inefficient to collect ; the mechanism whereby it is to be collected is shambolic and extremely expensive. The facts on that subject may be of interest, and I checked them this afternoon. In Scotland, 2,000 additional local authority staff have had to be recruited to collect the poll tax and the cost of collection has added £50 million a year to the local authority bill. That absurd impost in collection charges alone will have to be borne by poll tax payers.

The tax entails an extremely cumbersome and complicated system of rebates which are allocated in an ad hoc manner. Some people will get a rebate because they happen to have a certain disease, whereas others who would regard themselves as equally ill or even more ill do not qualify. The application of that system is inconsistent.

Column 256

The default rate will be higher and the speed of collection slower than was the case with rates. Again, I made a point of checking my facts. In Scotland, 400,000 people now face summary warrants, which means that they have paid nothing at all this year. A further 450,000 people are substantially in arrears. The uncollected amount represents 20 per cent. of the total, or £240 million--five days before the end of the financial year. The local authorities estimate that 6 per cent. of the total will never be collected. That means £60 million that they will not secure.

Let us extrapolate from that figure what the position is likely to be in England and Wales in a year's time : 5 million people will have paid nothing whatever towards the poll tax in England and Wales this time next year and a further 4.5 million will be substantially in arrears. In all, nearly 10 million people will have paid nothing at all or will not have paid anything like their full contribution, in many cases because they do not have the money and do not know how they can pay.

We in Scotland remain incredulous that the Secretary of State did not realise that the relief introduced in last week's Budget would be regarded as unfair if equivalent relief were not applied retrospectively to Scotland, which has already suffered the poll tax for a year. I do not need to rehearse that argument but I must emphasise that I believe that it has damaged the Union--the relationship between Scotland and England and between Parliament and the Scottish Office. It has thrown those matters into stark and sharp relief. The irony is that we are talking about a relatively small number of people and about a small amount of money. The Secretary of State for Scotland has now allocated £4 million, but most people believe that he will not need a fraction of that. I am advised that a very small number of people will qualify and that they are likely to receive less than 50p a week. That means that many people will not bother to claim. Would you claim 50p a week in relief, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you had £16,000 in the bank? It is hardly worth the bother. It is not the sum that the people resent, however ; it is the principle that was wrong. Ironically, the Government got themselves in an enormous mess over a tiny amount of money because they forgot that Scotland is a year ahead and that people in Scotland therefore view matters somewhat differently.

There is anger throughout the United Kingdom about the introduction of transitional relief. Ministers stated categorically at the Conservative party conference, which was shown live on television, that anyone paying more than £3 a week more than they would pay under the rates system would secure relief. In fact, people will get relief only if the notional amount that the Government said their local authority would levy is £3 a week more than they would pay in rates. The amount that is actually levied does not come into the calculation. It is no good the Government arguing that local authorities are overspending. For the average person who must foot the bill, that failure is a monstrous injustice. The Government are not delivering what Ministers said was on offer, and that has caused considerable resentment.

The only way that the Government will get off the hook is by converting the poll tax in due course to a local income tax and transferring its administration to the Inland Revenue. That would be simple, just, progressive and fair. The arguments advanced by Conservative Members--and, if the truth be known, the underlying argument

Column 257

behind the Labour party's roof tax--suggest that all those who recognise that the poll tax is unworkable are gravitating towards a local income tax as the only way forward. To the local authorities, that has the additional advantage of buoyancy. It provides some of the continuity of revenue that it requires.

The Government cannot rumble on with this unjust tax, which falls so unfairly. It is high time that it was looked at. This should certainly be done before the recess. I do not think that the Government can assume, as the Prime Minister said, that this time next year the tax will be popular or that the grievances will have disappeared. In this regard, we in Scotland are a year ahead of England and Wales. I am frequently asked by journalists outside the House, "Does it settle down?" All that I can say is that, a year on, the complications in Scotland are greater than those in England and Wales. The anomalies are multiplying by the day. The injustice becomes more and more apparent. The total uselessness of the tax, its unfairness and inefficiency, and the fact that it cannot all be collected bring it home to anybody who is involved that it must go--and the sooner the better.

6.31 pm

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton) : I want to raise three--perhaps three and a half--subjects that the House ought to debate before it rises for the Easter recess. The first is not unadjacent to the subject that was raised by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Many of my constituents tell me that they accept the principle of the community charge but have strong reservations about its implementation and are particularly critical about the amounts that have been levied. I do no want to go into detail ; I will make just two brief points about the matter. First, increasing numbers of constituents will be interested in local government spending and local government efficiency--that is coming across very clearly--but also, by definition, increasing numbers of constituents will be interested in the grant system and the way in which the grant is worked out.

The House may recall that last Wednesday, in the Budget debate, I bowled the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) what may at the time have seemed a remarkably soft ball, which, none the less, had a point behind it. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Labour party was vehemently opposed to a local income tax. My reason for putting the point to him was that the party of the hon. Member for Gordon-- the SLD--supports the introduction of a local income tax, as do several of my constituents who are opposed to, or critical of, the community charge. Indeed, one or two of my hon. Friends support the idea of a local income tax. I therefore wondered why the Labour party, which must now have quite high ambitions, was against a local income tax.

I suspect that the reason--this is the point that I put to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East--is that a local income tax would bear very heavily, and almost exclusively, on working families. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friends to record that that is a major defect of the device of a local income tax.

Column 258

I want to refer to an aspect of industry and an aspect of trade that may be linked. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) may be aware that the shirt-making company Van Heusen, which is located in my constituency, in Taunton, and in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Defence, in Bridgwater, has announced that it will close its operations in those two towns and will relocate--partly to Derbyshire and partly to Northern Ireland. What is the loss of Taunton and Bridgwater is Northern Ireland's gain, and I do not begrudge my hon. Friend that. I understand that one of the reasons that Van Heusen has given is that regional incentives are available in Northern Ireland. That is something that we have to reckon with, although I must place it on the record that this Government have rolled back regional incentives considerably.

The related matter of the balance of payments did not emerge during the Budget debate, but it is something to which we should be directing attention. The figures suggest that the major deterioration over the past few years is in Britain's deficit with West Germany and with the Netherlands and Denmark, which, in currency and financial terms, are closely linked to West Germany.

It may come as something of a surprise to hon. Members--indeed, we should welcome it--that our deficit with France has not greatly deteriorated. In 1986 it was £1,159 million ; by 1989, while the general deficit had deteriorated remarkably, the deficit with France was £1,323 million. In the case of Italy--we know, of course, that Italy is always a strong competitor--there was a deterioration from £1,209 million in 1986 to £2,071 million in 1989. With Spain, which is becoming an important participant on the trading scene in Europe, we had a surplus of £115 million in 1986, and in 1989 that surplus had gone up to £366 million. That is quite a success story, and in the cases of France and Italy the situation is not disastrous--indeed, quite containable.

Over the past three years, the real deterioration has occurred in our trade with West Germany. In 1986, the deficit was £5.5 billion, whereas in 1989 it was nearly £9 billion. That is in addition to the rapid deterioration in the case of the Netherlands and in the case of Denmark. I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend and to Ministers in the Departments concerned with the economy a study of the reason for the development of the deterioration in respect of those countries.

What is it that British industry lacks in competition to Germany? Some days ago, Opposition Members were shouting about the pound having fallen to DM 2.71. That may help us in our export-import competition with West Germany, but this matter deserves consideration before the House rises for the Easter recess.

An aspect of the last main subject to which I want to refer was debated in an Adjournment debate on 21 February initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). I refer to the plight that faces rural post offices and village shops. I am sure that this is a matter in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will be interested. The situation has been exacerbated by the business rates revision and revaluation and the community charge--but especially the business rates.

I have strongly supported the policy of the Government on this matter : the uniform business rate was necessary and desirable, and in my opinion the revaluation was long overdue--there should have been revaluations in 1978 and

Column 259

in 1983--but this affects rural post offices and village shops, and the Government and the Conservative party must think very carefully about how to proceed.

There is no doubt that the matter concerns a number of people in the more remote rural areas--in my constituency, Exmoor, the Brendon hills and the Black Down hills--but there are even more extensive remote areas in the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends--places such as Devon, Cornwall and north Yorkshire.

Older people who have lived all their lives in those areas want to stay there in retirement. We must consider how they will be served when the shops and village post offices have possibly closed down. We might, for example, consider how we can encourage people who have retired from industry with a pension, and who have other occupations, to keep a village shop going. This applies to the post office that serves me and my family.

In these areas, it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a living simply from running a village shop or post office. No doubt these shops will be helped by transitional arrangements and by the phasing of the business valuation, and no doubt they have a right to appeal--a right that they should certainly use. I think that the rather broad-brush revaluations that have taken place have not taken account of what I might describe as the scarcity factor--the fact that not many people want to take over post offices or village shops in remote areas. That might bring temporary relief.

Finally, I come to my half-subject. Letters are beginning to roll in on dog licences and dog registration. I am well aware of the practical arguments and objections to a dog registration scheme. Taunton, has recently appointed one dog warden, but what can one do with so many dogs? One sensible proposal, which I hope will be considered, is to let local authorities keep the proceeds from the fines that they exact from people who break the law. That may go against the general principle operating with penalties and fines for justice, but it would give local authorities, which are responsible, the incentive to appoint dog wardens to pursue those who allow their dogs to stray, often to the severe inconvenience and danger of people and with the resultant increase in filth in the neighbourhood. If this were done, local authorities could choose how to pursue the scheme and how many dog wardens to appoint. That would help to meet the substantial lobbying which hon. Members will meet in the coming weeks from those who want a full-blown dog registration system, about which I have strong reservations.

Those are the subjects that the House should discuss before we rise for the Easter recess.

6.40 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : The terrible tragedy in South Africa yesterday, the killing of eight protestors and the injuring of hundreds more, took place 30 years and five days after the Sharpeville massacre and is rightly a matter of deep concern to the House. It could be argued that the South African Government have moved to a more flexible position, albeit in a limited way, but the police and security forces in South Africa appear to be out of control and politically sympathetic to the ultra-right parties who have opposed what the South African Government have done recently--the freeing of Nelson Mandela and the unbanning of the African National Congress.

Column 260

Therefore, I hope that the British Government will make the strongest possible representations to the South African authorities over what occurred yesterday. Moreover, I hope that Conservative Members will agree that this is not the time to remove sanctions. They should not be removed until negotiations between the South African Government and the ANC are well under way.

Understandably, hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced arguments about the poll tax. The Leader of the House has a cheek to ask for a declaration of loyalty from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when some of the Prime Minister's admirers and supporters--my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) asks where they are, but I am sure that they are around somewhere, even if they are not too keen to show their loyalty at the moment--might argue that he himself has not shown undue support for the Prime Minister. When he was sacked as Foreign Secretary, his actions did not show undue loyalty to the Prime Minister. The Government would have been in one crisis fewer today if they had taken the advice of the right hon. Member for Henley. I well remember that on Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill in 1987 the right hon. Gentleman said that when he was Secretaryof State for the Environment the poll tax was considered at his request--I see some Conservative Members nodding in agreement--and he recommended to the Cabinet that it was not on.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : He was right. I voted against it.

Mr. Winnick : I am pleased that some Conservative Members had the courage to do so. They have been proved right.

In the 1979 Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee on the Environment which had a Conservative majority. After looking at all the alternatives to the rating system, it came to the conclusion that the poll tax should be rejected. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) may have been in favour of the poll tax, but if so he was the only Conservative Member who was. However, I do not want to embarrass him tonight. He may have changed his mind.

Mr. Adley : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have now discovered the meaning of ability to pay? I have the ability to pay and I am entitled to transitional relief.

Mr. Winnick : I hope that the Leader of the House has noted that. Another senior Conservative Member who warned against the poll tax was the former leader of the party and Prime Minister--the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). On Second Reading, he completely rejected the poll tax. He warned that it would thereafter be referred to as the Tory tax. The people of Mid-Staffordshire have taken that on board. They know that it is the Tory tax. It is certainly not the only reason, but it is one reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) has a 9,449 majority.

In saying a few words about housing, it would be appropriate to mention my late colleague, Allan Roberts, who, sadly, died last week. Allan never hid his political views before he became active in public life. He was deeply political for, as far as I know, almost all his life, at least from the age of 16 onwards. He was dedicated to

Column 261

campaigning for adequate housing for all our citizens. I remember a speech that he made at a Labour party conference before he became a Member of Parliament when he said that it was nonsense to divide the community between council tenants and those who owned their own homes. He said that we should try to provide decent housing for all our citizens. Before coming here, Allan was the chairman of Manchester council's housing committee. He will be much missed by the parliamentary Labour party and certainly by his constituents. He was a much-liked and very able Member who served his constituents well. It is tragic that Allan Roberts died in his mid-40s.

We are faced with an appalling housing crisis. The latest figures that I have show a reduction of some 83 per cent.--I emphasise that figure--in public sector starts since the Government took office. In my borough no council dwellings have been built since 1979. What does that mean to the people who simply cannot afford a mortgage ; those people who, even in better times of low interest rates and even when they are in employment, do not have sufficient income to take out a mortgage? When they come to my surgeries--many write to me on housing matters--I say that the Government do not expect them to ask for council houses but to obtain a mortgage, and they laugh. They are in no position to do so. I accept that the majority of people will be able to purchase their own home. Why not? I am all in favour of it. But there will always be a sizable minority who, because of their income, must rely on rented accommodation. It is precisely those people who are faced with many problems as a result of the Government's deliberate policy of making it almost impossible for local authorities to build.

Ministers gloat about the number of council houses that have been sold off. They believe that that is the right policy. But if it is right for council tenants to buy the dwellings in which they live--the Tories would say it was almost a human right--what about private tenants? Why should not they have the same right? Of course, the Conservative Government have been totally inconsistent.

If the Government pursue a policy of selling off council dwellings, is it not important that local authorities should have the means to replace the houses that have been sold off? We have always argued that people would not want to buy flats. Someone living in a multi-storey block of flats will not go to the housing office and say, "Give me an application form to buy." It is houses that are sold off, and inevitably it is the better houses.

We should be concerned not only about people who are desperate for housing but about families who live in multi-storey blocks. In my borough many couples with two children live in them and they have to wait for some considerable time to be rehoused because the local authority does not have enough houses to be able to offer them alternative accommodation. People with no children or only one child stand no chance at all. Is that right? Why should people with two children have to wait so long to be rehoused and people with no children stand no chance at all?

The Government have argued that housing associations can do the job if local authorities no longer do so. Figures show that there has been a sharp reduction in the number of dwellings built by housing associations. Since 1978 there

Next Section

Home Page