House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 May 1990

Points of Order

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reason why I sought to raise this point of order about one and a half hours ago was that I wanted it to be heard while the Prime Minister and others who had been involved were still present-- [Interruption.] I see, however, that she wants to leave the scene. The point that I wanted to put to you, Mr. Speaker, was this : is it really a proper and sensible use of the limited time in Prime Minister's Questions to turn it into a ritualised, scripted chanting that sounded more like an audition for "A Chorus Line" than an opportunity to question the Prime Minister on issues such as the poll tax? The result is that other hon. Members and parties were excluded entirely from the questioning. Is it something that you would wish to see repeated, or would deprecate?

Mr. Speaker : It is entirely in the hands of the House. As long as we persist with the open question, we are bound to get much noise at Prime Minister's Question Time. If hon. Members were to table definitive questions, I think that Prime Minister's Question Time would be as it used to be in the past, and would proceed in the same good order as ordinary Question Time.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that yesterday I raised the sub judice rule and the Court of Appeal decision of last Friday. Have you had time to reflect on the position and come to a conclusion?

Mr. Speaker : As I undertook to do yesterday, I have looked at the questions and answers relevant to yesterday's points of order. I find that on 19 October 1988, the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) tabled a question to the Home Secretary for written answer on the following day asking whether he intended to propose amendments of the law concerning the right of silence in England and Wales. The Home Secretary in his reply favoured such a change and announced that he was setting up a working party on the subject. He also announced that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was laying before the House a draft Order in Council relating to the general criminal law in Northern Ireland. No corresponding question had been tabled to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but an answer was given by him on the same day, 20 October 1988, in the form of information "pursuant to" an answer on the general criminal law in Northern Ireland that he had answered on 20 July of that year. In the supplementary answer, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave details of how the proposed changes in the law of Northern Ireland relating to the right of silence would work.

I am satisfied that neither the question from the hon. Member for Stockton, South nor the answer by either Secretary of State was in breach of the sub judice resolution of the House. A forthcoming general change in the law of evidence could never be announced to Parliament if cases currently being tried under the existing law prevented it. In addition, from what I have seen of the reports of proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the comments of the court do not appear to relate to the parliamentary answers themselves, but to interviews on television.

Column 923

The Table Office will continue to examine questions for compliance with the sub judice resolution, but nothing in conflict with our own rules occurred in this case.

Mr. Bennett : Further to the point of order and to your statement, Mr. Speaker, would you consider the position further? If a Minister makes a statement on television pursuant to remarks made in the House, the Court of Appeal will take that into consideration. I think that you should consider that point as well.

Mr. Speaker : It is not a proceeding in Parliament. What happens on television and what hon. Members say outside the House are not protected in any way.

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may consider that a matter of privilege arises. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) that when the Court of Appeal examined the answers given by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he was being questioned in an interview not about the case but about the legislation that he was bringing by way of Order in Council to the House. That makes it a different matter. I do not expect an answer from you at this stage, but would you consider referring the matter to the Select Committee on Privileges?

Mr. Speaker : It is not a matter for me. Statements made outside the House are not covered by privilege.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Is it on the same point?

Rev. Martin Smyth : No, but you have said, Mr. Speaker, that you are not responsible for what happens on television. Has your attention been drawn to a press report today that television companies, particularly in Northern Ireland, have decided not to broadcast the next Northern Ireland Question Time because, of the first 20 questions, only two have been tabled by Members from Northern Ireland? I voted for television. One reason in favour of television was that it would be possible to broadcast to the regions regional affairs. Is it not a breach of that understanding if Northern Ireland Question Time is not broadcast?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member should draw that to the attention of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House. One thing that may be said about television is that it has greatly increased the number of questions on the Order Paper and the interest among hon. Members in Question Time.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is now televised and statements and answers to questions go over the air into the houses of potential jurors. Therefore, the sub judice rule will have to be considered again. Will you consider that aspect because a very important point has been raised?

Mr. Speaker : It is indeed a very important point. Proceedings in the House are totally privileged. If hon. Members say things to newspapers or say them on television, they are not privileged.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 30 March I submitted a

Column 924

question for oral answer on 25 April to the Department of the Environment about the breakdown of local government revenue into central Government grant, the national business rate and the community charge. The question was brought forward for written answer on 20 April. I have not yet received a reply. I have been in contact with the Department of the Environment and I have discovered that the answer provided by the civil servants was on the Minister's desk on 19 April, but now the Department claims that it needs to investigate the figures further in order to provide an answer at a later date. I am afraid that the later date will be after Thursday's elections. The figures are relevant to the elections. It is the duty of the Opposition to press for information to use politically. Can anything be done to ensure that the information which I seek will be available before Thursday?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has done it.

Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the debate last evening on new clause 5 of the Environmental Protection Bill, I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and disputed some statistics that she was using. You will find that the record shows that the hon. Lady replied that what I had said was not true. I have had the opportunity to check the record--

Mr. Speaker : Order. A dispute between hon. Members in the Chamber is not a matter for me. The contents of Members' speeches are not my responsibility.

Mr. Bruce : I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking for your guidance. When an Opposition Member accuses a Member on this side of an untrue statement, how can one get redress? Statistics supplied by the RSPCA were being used in a debate and it was claimed that 365,000 stray dogs are killed each year, yet its own report clearly states that only 90,000 stray dogs are killed each year. I need your guidance on how to get the point over.

Mr. Speaker : I listened to part of the debate when I was in the Chair. Even when I was not in the Chamber I heard what was going on. I understand that there was a good deal of disagreement on both sides of the House and, indeed, on the Government's side about figures. It is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of raising that.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have made a comment about the number of questions on the Order Paper. On quite a few occasions during the past 10 days we have got past questions Nos. 20 or 30, or even up to No. 40, because of the absenteeism of hon. Members, many of whom probably did not know that questions had been tabled in their names. Before questions are starred, Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for you to ensure that they have been tabled personally by the hon. Members? That would avoid duplication and ensure that those who genuinely want to ask questions are here.

Mr. Speaker : The Select Committee on Procedure has examined the matter, and I understand that its report is on the point of being published. I am avidly awaiting it. I suggest that the hon. Member also studies it. He may find in that report the answer to his question.

Column 925

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Ordered,

That the Town and Country Planning General Development (Scotland) Order (S.I., 1990, No. 508) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Domestic and Part Residential Subjects (Scotland) (S.I., 1990, No. 630) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) Regulations (S.I., 1990, No. 788) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Community Charges (Levying, Collection and Payment) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations (S.I., 1990, No. 684) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Technology) Order (S.I., 1990, No. 424) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. That the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in English) (No. 2) Order (S.I., 1990, No. 423) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Column 926

Control of Inflation (Local Government) Bill

5.10 pm

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the annual increases in expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales. The purpose of the Bill is to seek to restrict local government spending to the rate of inflation for the next two years and to gear the measure of inflation to the local pay and prices index. Clearly, it must be recognised by the House that there are elements in the retail prices index that will not be in the pay and prices index, and vice versa. Therefore, it would be unfair to local authorities not to base the spending on the pay and prices index.

We must consider the principle behind the community charge and the way that it is worked out. The changeover from rates, paid by roughly a third of the population, to the community charge has resulted in large increases in local government expenditure. As a consequence, large amounts of extra local government taxation has been paid by the majority of people up and down the country.

I shall use my county of Lancashire as an example because I am most familiar with it. It has been pointed out by colleagues that many local authorities like Lancashire have--as when decimal coinage was introduced-- under the umbrella of the change in policy, brought in extra expenditure that they would not otherwise have done. Lancashire is typical of many authorities up and down the country--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancashire) : Labour local authorities.

Mr. Hind : Yes, Labour authorities, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are the worst offenders in this regard. Lancashire is a typical example. It has increased its expenditure by 17.5 per cent. If rates had now been in operation in Lancashire, that would have resulted in an increase of 32 per cent. for every household. Clearly, that problem must be dealt with, and the Bill will do so.

The Bill will also deal with inflation. When inflation is the major enemy of the country and needs to be controlled, local government cannot be immune from its consequences. Labour local authorities are making vast increases and, consequently, increasing pressure on inflation, which damages everyone in our community. Central Government must control expenditure in order to control inflation, and the same discipline must be placed on local government. Hon. Members have to take difficult decisions when they see that there is merit in increasing expenditure, but feel that it would have long-term economic effects on the value of the pound, confidence in the world, the stock exchange, and the overall running of the country. In those circumstances, we say that we refuse to increase expenditure, and will perhaps reconsider the position in the future. The increases in spending in local government will, in May, probably add at least 1 per cent. to the inflation rate. That will affect the possibility of reductions in mortgage interest rates, business interest rates and the Government's economic strategy. The Bill will ensure that local authorities cannot be immune from their responsibility to the community for downward pressure on inflation.

Column 927

Labour councils' increased expenditure is everyone else's higher mortgage repayments, and the public must realise that.

Local councils have overspent their budgets for many years. There have been continual over-spenders, and Lancashire has been typical. Many Labour councils have shown themselves totally unable to control expenditure. Therefore, a cap must be placed on them to oblige them to make more sensible use of the resources available and to control what they do.

Until I discussed the matter with people I do not think that many of them realised that county councils, of which Lancashire is typical, levy seven eighths of the charge. They also do not realise that those councillors who are increasing the charge will not come up for re-election until 1993. That means that three further community charges will be set without any accountability to the electorate. If the Bill goes through the House, the electorate will feel that their interests will be protected until they can get to the ballot box to deal with the problem.

We must also recognise that those same county councils were elected in 1989, before the community charge came into operation. They have never had to say, "This is the amount that we will charge", and describe the services that they will provide. In 1993 they will have to face, and deal with, that problem.

The public must realise that county councils finance on a four-year cycle, which the Bill will break. In the first three of its last four years in power, the Labour group on Lancashire council increased rates above the inflation level and stacked away reserves. In the fourth year, election year, the Labour councillors spent those reserves to get themselves elected. Consequently, in the year after the election, they had to recharge the reserves which were as low as £1.7 million. The result is that the community charge in Lancashire consists of £13 per head to restock the reserves, plus an extra £11 to cover the overspend of the previous year when they had not levied sufficient funds from the electorate by way of rates--that makes a total of almost £25. In effect, the public were being bribed with their own money to elect a Labour council in the fourth year of the cycle. The Bill will stop that. I have no doubt that Lancashire is typical of Labour councils throughout the country.

Such a cap will oblige councillors to budget more prudently. Over-spenders like Lancashire will have to look for more efficient ways to provide services. Hampshire county council makes a good comparison. It has 125,000 more people, the age profile of its population is older and it provides the same services--on Government measure, at better quality--with 11,000 fewer employees than are being paid for by the Lancashire electors.

P and A reports are available in Lancashire that show that residential homes are in an appalling state and that social services, such as meals on wheels, are far too expensive and provide poor service, not reaching the people who desperately need them. To date, the council has not taken the advice of its own consultants, but prefers to levy large amounts from the population of Lancashire. The Bill will also protect people on low income, whom all hon. Members have met, and whose pleas have been ignored by Lancashire county councillors. My district council, West Lancashire, asked for the county council to reduce its expenditure, but it refused. Increases in expenditure hit the population hard. The majority, whether on pensions, benefits or salaries, receive between

Column 928

6.5 and 9 per cent. in increases. Lancashire constituents will have to meet 17.5 per cent. increases in expenditure, which erodes their standard of living and reduces their disposable income.

Voters must be aware that many Labour councils will succumb to the temptation to help Labour win the next election by continuing to increase the community charge. That is another factor that the electorate must bear in mind. If Opposition Members divide the House on what we believe to be a sensible measure, it will be only to enable their colleagues to continue to undermine the Government. 5.20 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I do not oppose the Bill in the spirit of trying to undermine the Government. Without yah-boo, I wish to put a contrary and, I hope, courteous case. If there are to be ten-minute Bills--there are some who think they should be abolished--we should take them seriously and not just let them go through because of parliamentary convenience, lethargy or whatever. I believe that this Bill should be opposed.

During the 1987 general election, I spoke in the hon. Gentleman's town hall in Accrington in support of the Labour candidate Keva Coombes. As a Scot, I spent 10 of the 20 minutes available speaking about the poll tax. When I left the platform, I was asked rather sharply why I had spent so long on that matter. It is only when we experience the poll tax that we realise the full enormity of what is happening.

I say gently to Conservative Members that if they think that year two will be any easier than year one, they are mistaken. It will make parliamentary life a misery. If we could start all over again, for the sake of personal convenience rather than political advantage I would never want to embark on such a road again. There is a geological flaw in the system. The hon. Member for Accrington-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hyndburn --[ Hon. Members :-- "Wrong Member."] The hon. Gentleman is tinkering with the tax in the hope of making some improvement. There is no raft ; no safety net. The hon. Member for Hyndburn--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : The hon. Gentleman has the wrong Member.

Mr. Dalyell : I am sorry. The hon. Member for Accrington--[ Hon. Members :-- "Wrong."] There is no safety net to rescue people. There is no safety vehicle. The poll tax is bound by geological flaws and there is no way that it can succeed.

I wish to cite just a few figures. There are now 400,000 people in the Strathclyde region alone who have either not paid or have been unable to pay in full. For most of them, it is not a political protest--

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : What is it then?

Mr. Dalyell : I can tell the hon. Gentleman that people at the lower end of the income scale have other bills to pay, such as electricity--

Mr. Ashby : What about the roof tax?

Mr. Dalyell : I am not putting my case in a yah-boo way. I am trying to explain why there are fundamental difficulties. People put poll tax at the bottom of the list,

Column 929

debts mount up and, even more serious, actual physical illness is caused by worry. We have constituency experience of that. When any scheme is introduced, sooner or later there must be sanctions. In Scotland, it is the sheriff officers and the warrant sales. There must be some legal sanctions. That is exceedingly unpleasant and creates resentment. It is causing constituency agony. Some 23 per cent. of people do not pay the poll tax. In Lothian region, which is smaller than Strathclyde, 70,000 people have not paid the poll tax. That did not happen under the rating system. The hon. Gentleman's proposal is merely alleviative--it is an attempt to alleviate a difficult position. There is no way that it can be alleviated. The system is geologically flawed and fundamentally impossible because property is static and people are mobile. It is more difficult in the second year to trace people. Many thousands of people have not had a poll tax demand. The officials in my local authority are very efficient, but because of the constant changes of address the task is very difficult. Rather than trying to introduce an alleviative measure, the House of Commons should face the problem and admit that the poll tax cannot be amended. The system should be changed and we should go no further down the poll tax road.

Mr. Hind : On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am the hon. Member for Lancashire, West, not for Accrington or Hyndburn. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not speak in my constituency.

Question put :--

The House divided : Ayes 88, Noes 143.

Division No. 188] [5.26 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Allason, Rupert

Amos, Alan

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Aspinwall, Jack

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bellingham, Henry

Bevan, David Gilroy

Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Brazier, Julian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Buck, Sir Antony

Butler, Chris

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carrington, Matthew

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cran, James

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dunn, Bob

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Gale, Roger

Gill, Christopher

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gorst, John

Gow, Ian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Gregory, Conal

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Hague, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Hill, James

Hind, Kenneth

Holt, Richard

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Irvine, Michael

Irving, Sir Charles

Janman, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Latham, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Miller, Sir Hal

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Monro, Sir Hector

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Mudd, David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Price, Sir David

Riddick, Graham

Rost, Peter

Sayeed, Jonathan

Shelton, Sir William

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Speller, Tony

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Next Section

Home Page