House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 May 1990

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : Does my hon. Friend agree with me about another example of the bad policy operated by the Government on such matters? Does he agree that, where DNA testing proves that a wrong decision was taken in the past on an entry application, that decision should now be put right regardless of the age of the applicant?

Mr. Cox : My hon. Friend has made a valuable point, but I shall not pursue it, because I might encounter your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I ask the Minister to discuss that point with his officials, not only here, but especially in Pakistan. If, when he replies, he can give us the assurance that he will look seriously at the points that many hon. Members have made--irrespective of party--it would show our constituents and the Government of Pakistan not only that we welcome Pakistan back into the Commonwealth, but that we shall

Column 707

now start to put right any wrongs that we have committed as a country, possibly under successive Governments. If we do that, although this debate may have been restricted in a way that many of us have not liked, it will nevertheless have been of great benefit. 11.33 pm

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : I join hon. Members of all parties in welcoming Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth, and especially to democracy.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and must take issue with him on one point. He spoke about "the stability" in Pakistan. I am afraid that the position in Pakistan is not stable and has not been stable for sometime, and that Pakistan does not show any particular signs of returning to stability in the near future, although that is something for which we must all hope.

I shall be brief and when I say that I shall conclude, I shall, indeed, conclude. Having heard your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not say much about Kashmir, although I had intended to quote at length from an article in The Times of 8 May, which was headed : "Indian crackdown turns Kashmir into fortress."

I shall merely say that if you happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to fly from India to Pakistan, you would travel from one democracy to another. The chances are, however, that you would fly over a territory whose people do not enjoy a democracy and do not have the right to self-determination. Those people should have the right of self-determination, which they were first told that they should have at the United Nations in 1948. They still do not have it, and too much time has passed.

I conclude as I began, by saying that I welcome Pakistan's return to the Commonwealth and rejoice in its return to democracy. 11.36 pm

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : I join other hon. Members in welcoming Pakistan back into the Commonwealth of nations and its return to democracy. The whole House should support Benazir Bhutto as she faces the difficult task of holding together democracy in Pakistan. I welcome the end of the suffering of many women in Pakistan. Under General Zia, women suffered especially with the passing of the Hadood ordinances. Those severe laws had a significant effect on women's rights. When we talk about democracy in Pakistan we should bear in mind the fact that the ordinances have not been fully revoked ; but at least their implementation has been suspended under the new Government.

I support the pleas for more humane treatment of Pakistanis who visit the United Kingdom. I have in mind especially the women of Pakistani families living in this country who are seeking to bring their husbands or fiance s here to live with them and to share a life together. They face a great problem. Trick questions in interviews aften work against people who have a language difficulty and are extremely anxious. If they are unable satisfactorily to meet the terms of the interview they may be unable to share a life with their loved one in this country. Pain and suffering is caused when families are kept apart by what I consider to be inhumane immigration laws. Can the House debate the Bill in peace and tranquillity while the people of Kashmir suffer indiscriminate killings, arbitrary arrests, unlawful searches, unprovoked assaults as a result of peaceful demonstrations and a complete

Column 708

disruption of their normal lives? Many Kashmiris have suffered the imposition of an indefinite curfew for months. The are denied basic human rights. Surely it is time to debate the position in Kashmir. I know that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to introduce that issue in this debate. None the less, I feel that such a debate is long overdue. The Minister quoted the Simla agreement of 1972, but no Kashmiri representatives were consulted on or involved in that agreement between India and Pakistan.

Of course the Kashmir people want independence and the right of self- determination. Kashmir is not part of India or of Pakistan. The right of self-determination for 10 million people is something that the House should take extremely seriously.

I welcome the fragile democracy that exists in Pakistan. I also welcome the fact that Pakistan is back within the Commonwealth. I urge the Minister, and the Government as a whole, to take seriously what is happening in Kashmir, which is resulting in great suffering. I beg for an urgent debate on Kashmir on an occasion when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not rule me out of order.

11.39 pm

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : It is a great pleasure, even at this hour, to say a few words in reply to what has been an excellent debate. A measure of the importance of the subject, and of our concern about improving relations between our two countries, is the number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have participated in the debate even at this--as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) described it--ungodly hour. It is notable that those who have participated have included the principal official Opposition spokesman and the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. I am afraid that I do not have the knowledge and experience to go down the gastronomical and matrimonial byways of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), so I shall concentrate on the five themes that seem to have emerged from the debate.

First, there has been a universal welcome for the Bill and, above all, for the return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth after a gap of 17 years. The Opposition are still positive about the Commonwealth, and none of the cynicism that seems to be beginning to creep in among Conservative Members exists among the Opposition.

Secondly, during the debate we have heard widespread respect and affection, which I share, for Benazir Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I had the privilege of meeting her when she visited in July, as did many other hon. Members. As one or two hon. Members said, she does not have to seek out the problems in Pakistan, and we wish her well in overcoming them.

The third theme is the need for the United Kingdom Government to increase our aid and assistance to Pakistan, in recognition not only of its membership of the Commonwealth and return to democracy, but of its needs. That was said eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and also the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). It is truly an all-party request to the Minister. On behalf of the official Opposition, I hope that the Minister will pass on to

Column 709

his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development that strong view, which has emerged from both sides of the House. The fourth theme is the high regard in which all hon. Members, including myself, hold the high commissioner of Pakistan. The fifth theme is concern about the position in Kashmir. Sometimes, when considering our problems in this not so United Kingdom, I recall the parable of the motes and beams. It is always easier to deal with other people's problems than one's own. The Opposition believe strongly that the problem of Kashmir should be resolved by discussion, not conflict. We hope that that difficult problem will not result once again in conflict between two countries, now two members of the Commonwealth. We hope that the Government will do all in their power to ensure that that does not happen.

The hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke eloquently. He is an active member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting. Pakistan will now rejoin the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I want to emphasise the importance of parliamentary contacts in re-establishing and further developing relations between our two countries.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West, for Tooting and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) all raised the issue of the difficulties experienced by people in Pakistan, particularly relatives of their constituents and relatives of others in the United Kingdom, in visiting this country. That was raised at Foreign Office Question Time, when several of my colleagues and I pressed the Minister strongly on that matter. The Minister's reply, although courteous, was not satisfactory. I urge him again to consider a sysematic review of the procedures and staffing at visa section not just in Pakistan, although that is important and relevant in this context, but in other parts of the Commonwealth.

The debate has been positive. As I said, a number of themes have come through strongly and we have all welcomed Pakistan back to the Commonwealth. The other place had a debate on this matter at midday, approaching Christmas, and perhaps our debate has not been as ebullient as that debate. However, it has certainly been serious and positive. I hope that the Minister will take from it some of the positive themes and translate them into policy. If he does that, he will certainly have the whole-hearted support of the Opposition. 11.45 pm

Mr. Sainsbury : The debate has been excellent and a rare degree of unanimity has been displayed by hon. Members in all parts of the House in welcoming not only the Bill but the return of Pakistan to the Commonwealth and democracy.

I am happy to echo the words of praise for the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, for her contribution to her country. I am also happy fully to endorse the tributes paid by many hon. Members to the Pakistan high commissioner for his excellent contribution to United Kingdom-Pakistan relations. That was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Throne) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller), the right hon. Member for

Column 710

Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and others.

Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about aid. The aid programme to Pakistan has increased since the country's re-entry to the Commonwealth. It is planned to increase aid to £29 million this year and the bilateral aid programme has doubled in the past five years. It has increased from £18 million two years ago to £23 million last year and is our third largest programme in Asia.

We are increasing our contribution to the Commonwealth scholarship fellowship plan which we hope will enable the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom to provide a number of awards for Pakistan.

All 11 right hon. and hon. Members who spoke in the debate referred to Kashmir. I shall not incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by speaking at length on that matter, but I should like to emphasise that Britain's position of neutrality on the issue in no way implies indifference. Our long-standing position on Kashmir remains unchanged. We think that the dispute over the status of Kashmir can be settled only between the Governments of India and Pakistan, but we have made it clear that we would be prepared to play a role in settling the dispute if both sides wanted us to do that.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) spoke about the treatment of the Ahmadi community. We have long been concerned about that and have made our views clear. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall continue to do that as and when appropriate.

Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), spoke about immigration. As I think most of them know, immigration policy is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It is a Home Department responsibility, and administration of that policy overseas is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, I shall certainly look at the points made by hon. Members on immigration matters. I emphasise that about 90 per cent. of applications for visit visas are dealt with within 24 hours and we continually examine our procedures. We have been streamlining procedures in Islamabad to reduce queues. Many hon. Members referred to the contribution made to the life of our country by citizens of Pakistani origin--corner shops were mentioned, as well as restaurants up and down the Wilmslow road. I thought for a moment that the right hon. Member for Gorton was rehearsing for a maiden speech when he waxed so eloquent about everything in Gortonia.

There is one issue of contention in the debate. I was rather concerned when Manchester and Lancashire tried to claim Imran Khan. I should remind the right hon. Member for Gorton that Imran Khan was a distinguished captain and player for Sussex, whose home ground I can see from my sitting room, if not from my bedroom, which faces the other way.

This has been an excellent debate and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed. The quality of the debate is a testimony to the value in which we hold Pakistan, the good wishes we have for her and the welcome we extend on her return to the Commonwealth and democracy.

Column 711

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Column 712

Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords]

11.50 pm

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

There are four Bills relating to town and country planning matters before the House and, with permission, I shall speak to all four, as they should be considered as a unity.

The four Bills, taken together, amount to a consolidating measure. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 was the last major consolidation of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The 1971 Act has been considerably amended by primary legislation, including the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972, the Local Government Acts of 1972 and 1985, the Land Compensation Act 1973, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1984.

The result of the constant addition of material into the text of the 1971 Act and the repeal of extensive parts of it has been a loss of coherent structure. That is especially apparent in part IV of the 1971 Act dealing with special controls. The system of controls relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and to hazardous substances are so voluminous as to justify whole Bills relating to those topics alone. They have therefore been consolidated separately in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill.

In other respects, there is a broad correspondence between the Town and Country Planning Bill and the 1971 Act. The only difference is the creation of a new part which relates to Crown land and includes material from the Town and Country Planning Act 1984 and the Building Restrictions (War-time Contraventions) Act 1946. Finally, the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which is ancillary to the other three, deals with a number of technical and transitional matters, including repeals and consequential amendments.

In preparing the consolidation, the Law Commission issued a report in which it made a number of recommendations for amendments to and minor clarifications of the existing legislation, and those amendments appear in the Bills. All four Bills were referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee and on Consolidation Bills &c. during their passage in another place. The Committee reported that the recommendations of the Law Commission were necessary to produce a satisfactory consolidation of the law and that the four Bills, taken together, amounted to a single consolidation.

I should tell the House that a small number of further amendments will be brought forward.

As always, our thanks are due to the Law Commission and to the draftsmen for their excellent work in the process of keeping the statute book in modern and accessible form.

I commend the Bills to the House.

11.53 pm

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : As usual, one welcomes consolidation legislation as it makes life easier for practitioners. This set of four Bills is a remarkable achievement.

Is the progress of consolidation now being speeded up by putting statutes and amendments to them on the equivalent of a word processor, albeit an extremely large one? Are statutes being computerised to any degree to

Column 713

make that process easier and quicker in relation to the Bills before us and other heavy, voluminous, much-amended legislation that will come before us from time to time?

11.54 pm

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : I did not know whether you were going to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : The Standing Order says that the hon. Gentleman must rise in his place. His place is not in the middle of the Chamber. Does the hon. Member wish to speak?

Mr. Haynes : Are you having a go at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am sorry. I get carried away from time to time when you are in the Chair. I wanted to contribute. I am not pulling your leg. I want to have a go at the Solicitor-General, because he is talking about hazardous substances. From time to time, I have had a go at the Secretary of State for the Environment because we have problems in my area--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sorry to check the hon. Member, but I am bound to tell him that we are discussing a consolidation measure and we cannot discuss the merits of the contents of Bills which are the subject of consolidation. We can only discuss whether it is appropriate to consolidate at this time. The hon. Member cannot discuss hazardous substances now. He has to look for another opportunity.

Mr. Haynes : I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I fully understand, but the consolidation measure is hiding a problem back home in my constituency, and I want to express myself here tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am sorry, but the hon. Member will not be allowed to express himself on that subject tonight. If he seeks an early opportunity, I am sure that Mr. Speaker will look favourably on an Adjournment debate application. I wish that the hon. Member would not keep smiling at me in that way. I doubt whether the

Column 714

matter which he wishes to raise would be in order if he persisted in seeking to raise it. I hope that we will now allow me to put the question.

Mr. Haynes : I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will put in a good word for me upstairs.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee tomorrow.

PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee tomorrow.

PLANNING (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS] Order for Second Reading read.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee tomorrow.

PLANNING (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES) BILL [LORDS] Order for Second Reading read.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee tomorrow.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents)

Community financial perspective

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4963/90 plus COR 1 relating to revision and adjustment of the Community's financial perspective and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 30th March 1990.--[ Mr. Nicholas Baker. ]

Question agreed to.

Column 715

Community Charge

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

11.57 pm

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : My purpose in calling for this debate is twofold. First, I wish to raise some of the concerns and problems which many of my constituents have about the community charge. Secondly, now that the Government are committed to carrying out a review of the operation of the community charge, I wish to explore some of the changes which could be and need to be made. Before I do so, I welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) as Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, and I welcome his comments on his appointment that he is there to listen to other hon. Members and to councils for the various suggestions that they may have on how to improve the workings of the charge.

I do not think that I would be being particularly controversial or disloyal if I were to say that the way in which the community charge has been introduced this year has left something to be desired. Introducing a new charge or tax will always throw up problems--as, for example, some of the anomalies which have arisen over second homes, but some of the more serious problems should have been foreseen. The Department of the Environment's experience of how local authorities operate, and the experience in Scotland last year, when the community charge was introduced there for the first time, should have alerted us to the likelihood that councils, and Labour councils in particular, would jack up budgets and with them community charge bills in the hope of blaming high bills on the Government who introduced the new system. Indeed, a number of councils, including my local Labour-controlled Kirklees council, went for creative accounting last year by using more of their reserves than was prudent, which inevitably meant that there was less in reserve to keep down community charge bills this year.

If rates were still in existence, this year Kirklees council would have needed to raise them by 35 per cent. to bring in the same amount of money as it is raising through the community charge. The fact that it has set such a high community charge is somewhat immoral ; it is certainly highly cynical. It did so because it could then blame the Government for introducing the system, rather than placing the blame where it truly lies-- with the council because of its profligacy and inefficiency.

We should have written it into the legislation that no council could increase its budget by more than the rate of inflation in the first year of the changeover to the new system of local government finance. It appears likely that more central Government grant will be provided for local authorities next year. It would make sense for the Government, and it would be acceptable to the public, to legislate so that no council can increase either its budget or its community charge next year by more than the rate of inflation. Obviously, there would be scope for prudent councils to reduce spending, but my proposal would ensure that additional money provided to reduce community charge bills would be used for that purpose.

I feel that the Treasury was unwise to refuse to pick up the cost of the safety net in the first year. Many of the councils that have had to fund that safety net are

Column 716

Conservative. The cost of that led to them having to levy a community charge higher than that warranted by the actual cost of local services. That diminished the accountability element. However, the greatest cause of concern has undoubtedly been the large increases in the amounts payable in community charges this year as against rates last year.

In my constituency where there are thousands of terraced houses with low rateable values, many patriotic Englishmen and women, especially pensioner couples and young married couples, have had their bills increased from between £200 and £250 last year to between £500 and £600 this year. That is a great deal of additional money for such people to find. Many pensioners do not qualify for rebate because they have been prudent during their lives and have savings which, while not providing a great deal of additional income, prohibit them from claiming rebates. That is especially so in Yorkshire, where folk tend to be rather canny and like to save for a rainy day.

I have to report to my hon. Friend the Minister that the transitional relief scheme, intended to soften the blow for such people, has not worked as intended. Whatever else the Government decide to do, they must provide proper, long-term help for them. I hope that my hon. Friend will examine closely the interplay between transitional relief and the safety net in Kirklees and ensure that decisions related to them help to keep down community charge bills. I have always supported the principle of the community charge--that is, that everyone should contribute to local government services. It is interesting to note that a recent Gallup poll showed that the majority of the general public also accept that principle. However, there are concerns--and two in particular--about the community charge. The first is that the levels set by local authorities are too high. Secondly, there is a perception that the community charge is not fair because it is a flat rate tax. Of course, the irony is that that wholly ignores the fact that some 25 per cent. of charge payers are in receipt of rebates and that the majority of local government finance comes from central Government, who raise most of their finance through progressive taxes such as income tax.

If community charge levels had been set at between £100 and £200, the public would have accepted its flat rate nature--but because they are so much higher, there is a feeling that the system is unfair. To secure the public acceptance that will ensure that the charge works properly, the Government must either substantially reduce charge levels or make it relate to people's ability to pay--or provide a combination of the two.

I should be happy to see police and fire expenditure taken from local financing, and the community charge reduced accordingly. However, to do that as well as provide extra grant to reduce charge levels across the board would be extremely costly for the Treasury. That is why I believe that it would be sensible to make the charge relate more to people's ability to pay. If the Government do that, they will negate overnight the political flak to which they are being subjected.

Two years ago, I supported the banding of the community charge when I supported the so-called Mates amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill. I still believe that banding would be the most appropriate change to make. It is always easy to argue for a general, uncosted principle, so I shall present a concrete idea. I advocate a three-band system. It would comprise a standard band of community charge payable by

Column 717

individuals having an income above £8,500 and up to the threshold at which the top rate of income tax is payable. I use the figure of £8,500 because it is already a threshold figure used in tax law and in relation to benefits in kind.

The second band would be the standard community charge plus 25 per cent., payable by those paying the top rate of income tax. The third would be the standard charge, less 25 per cent., payable by those having incomes below £8,500. The rebate scheme would still be there to help those at the very bottom of the income scale.

Crucially, local authorities would not need to know the intimate details of people's incomes. Everyone would be liable to the highest rate, with the onus on the individual, in making an application to the local authority, to obtain an Inland Revenue certificate based on his previous year's income to prove eligibility for a lower charge rate.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : How would a housewife, or some other person who stays at home, be treated under my hon. Friend's system? I refer to the individual who has neither income nor earnings of their own.

Mr. Riddick : My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the anomalies that is frequently raised at my own surgeries. The system that I propose would ensure that non-working mothers looking after their families at home, for example, would pay the lower band of community charge--which would be not only fair but widely welcomed. The administration of the system I describe would not be too complex for local authorities or the Inland Revenue to

undertake--contrary to the argument that might be made by some of my hon. Friends. If such a scheme were to be introduced, the current average community charge throughout England of £363, plus the average rate of inflation--which next year is likely to be in the region of 6 per cent.-- could be used as the starting point for the top rate. In that way, no one would pay more in real terms next year than this year. The average top band level, indexed for inflation, would be £385, the middle band £307, and the lower band £231. In my own area of Kirklees, the figures would be £308, £246 and £185 respectively. With the top band next year similar to this year's community charge, we would not produce the same yield as this year's community charge income of £13 billion. I am indebted to the House of Commons Library for its help with my figures. It estimates that there would be a shortfall of £3.2 billion, based on the figures I have quoted and taking into account the savings that would be made on rebates and transitional relief. The Library suggests that an average middle band of £350 per person could be achieved with an additional Government grant of only £2 million.

All sorts of figures have been bandied about in the press as to how much extra money the Secretary of State for the Environment is trying to get out of the Treasury. Quite a bit of flexibility is built into my system. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that, contrary to what I have read in certain newspapers, the Government have not ruled out banding, and that the current review will consider my proposals. A few other problems and anomalies must be sorted out. The Government are committed to introducing

Column 718

legislation to clear up the anomalies relating to caravans. I welcome that commitment. A constituent came to my surgery as recently as last Friday and told me that, having moved house a short while ago, she now has to pay the standard community charge on her previous home, despite the fact that she is trying to sell it--so far without success. That kind of problem must be addressed.

Service men are faced with a real problem. Recently, I have been lucky enough to spend some time with the Army in connection with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and the problem was put to me on many occasions. Service men have to pay the full community charge, wherever they are based in barracks. Many of them have bought houses to provide them with a home base while leading such a nomadic life. In most cases, they have to pay the standard community charge times two on their homes. A number of bitter complaints have been made to me about that. The Minister must look into the problem, together with his Ministry of Defence colleagues.

I hope that the House and the Minister will accept that I have made constructive suggestions, in marked contrast to the normal style of our debates on the community charge. Opposition Members are interested only in scoring cheap party political points. They never submit alternative proposals. The public would accept the community charge if we made appropriate changes. We could then turn the spotlight on Labour's draconian alternative. Anyone in my constituency who owns his or her own home would pay substantially more under Labour's proposals for a roof tax than they now pay through the community charge. Only last week, I received a parliamentary answer which showed that a man on average earnings in Kirklees would pay well over £1,000 if a local income tax were to be levied.

There is no easy alternative to the community charge. I hope that my hon. Friend, the Cabinet and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will bear in mind and implement some of my proposals so that the community charge no longer looms large on the political agenda. There are two far more important and fundamental battles that the Prime Minister has to fight : first, to ensure that the regeneration of Britain's enterprise economy and industrial base continues and, secondly, to fight off the Euro-fanatics on the Continent who, in their quest for political union, wish to take power from the British people and Parliament. Let us get the community charge right so that these vital tasks are not blurred.

12.15 am

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of both the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and of the Minister?

Next Section

Home Page