House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Jul 1990

Column 416

If the hon. Lady would do her homework before she opened her mouth--in other words, arrange for her brain to work a little faster than her mouth--she would understand the problems of St. Helens and other authorities.

My plea to the Minister is to ensure fairness. In my constituency, the majority of people pay more per person in poll tax than they ever did in rates. Under the rating system, I paid about £240 a year for my flat in St. Helens. As it is a second home, I shall have to pay a double charge in due course. The single person charge is over £400. My flat is not large and it is not posh. Why is the poll tax almost twice as much as the rateable charge? Thousands of people in St. Helens are similarly affected. It is not fair. Could the SSA have been wrongly calculated?

Secondly, if it is true that the basis of SSAs is wrong, will the Minister undertake to reimburse the authorities which have suffered as a result of the inaccurate calculation? Surely that is a fair question, but I suspect that it will not be answered.

I cannot understand how the SSA of the authority that borders St. Helens-- it is just down the street in one of the wards in my constituency--is so much higher than in St. Helens, South. The demography is the same and there is the same industrial base. It is a similar area. Why are the two SSAs different? Perhaps the sense of fairness and justice that I and many others feel has not been brought into effect. Perhaps the 1981 census produced different assessments for the two areas. The Minister might explain, but I suspect that he will not.

That leads me to my third question. If the SSA is wrong, and if the Minister will not reimburse us, what will he do? We have already had the first hint, with the postponement for a year of ring fencing of care in the community and next year's payments. That more than a little affects St. Helens, which has the problem of Rainhill hospital.

If the Minister will undertake to come with me to St. Helens, I will show him the conditions, facilities and needs there. Then, as a quid pro quo, I will go to his constituency, or to the Secretary of State's rather pretty constituency of Bath. If the Minister or the Secretary of State are not prepared to swap facilities and amenities in their constituencies, will the Minister undertake to give us the finest SSA so that we can improve our facilities so that they match those in his constituency?

For me, justice must be justice for all. The facilities in one part of the country should be available in another. Those of us who live and work in the industrial north of England have a lot of catching up to do because it was the south that grew rich on the back of the spoil heaps and the exploitation of the north ; it is time that we had a little justice.

11.16 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : My 11 years in local government and my subsequent lecturing in and research into local government have convinced me that muddled thinking and confusion are two of the worst aspects of any debate on local government among not only Members of Parliament but councillors and the general public. Tonight's debate is yet another classic example of such muddled thinking and confusion.

The debate has tended to focus on issues that are not in question. This debate is really about something else. It is

Column 417

not about how local government is financed, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and others have suggested. It is not about the structure and size of local government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said. Nor is it directly about services themselves, as a raft of Opposition Members have suggested. However important services might be, and I do not seek to underplay them, they are not an issue in this debate.

Mr. Boateng : They are in my borough.

Mr. Wilshire : The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There goes the muddle and confusion again. This debate is about how much local government spends. It is not directly about what it spends money on.

Mr. Hardy : There is some truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, except that it is not the whole truth. The whole truth is certainly relevant. This debate is also about the level of grant which the Government distribute to local authorities, and we have sought to demonstrate that the distribution of grant under the present formula leads to the accusation of corruption which we believe is justified.

Mr. Wilshire : There goes the muddle and the confusion again. Grant is about income. Limiting expenditure is about expenditure. If only hon. Members could grasp that fundamental point we would make a lot of progress.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) went on and on in a heart-rending way about services in Derbyshire. He would not let me intervene--I understand why--to ask him the simple question whether he intended to say a single word about expenditure, which he did not.

Mr. Harry Barnes : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilshire : I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although he does not return the courtesy.

Mr. Barnes : If I had had the opportunity, I would have said a good deal about overall budgetary arrangements, and about the grant problem in particular. One answer would be for all the grants that are being cut with the introduction of the poll tax to be replaced by Government provision. Another £40 million for Derbyshire would solve some of our problems.

Mr. Wilshire : Not at all. We are continuing to witness the Opposition's failure to grasp the fundamental point that grant is about income, while we are talking about expenditure.

Let me try once more to drive the point home. Why are we not talking about how local government is financed? Because it does not matter whether we have a community charge, a rating system, a local income tax or an arrangement to fund local services with a 100 per cent. grant from central Government--or, indeed, by highway robbery. Whatever the method of funding, we must still address the fundamental issue of whether spending should be limited. If we decide that the answer is yes, we must ask ourselves how the limit should be set and who should have the final say.

The entire case put by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) can be boiled down to his closing flourish--"It will not be long before the community charge is

Column 418

swept away." Not a word was said about what would happen if spending got out of control under whatever system Labour wants to introduce.

Let me tackle a point made much earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, as I feel strongly about it.

Mr. Boateng : He is on the hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. Wilshire : I know. I am not talking only about the Opposition's failure to understand certain issues ; there has been some misunderstanding about other issues among Conservative Members. Those who try to bring the size or the structure of councils into the argument miss the central point : we are talking about expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said that, if councils were made smaller and the overlapping of responsibilities was ended, there would be no conflict and no need to control spending. That simply is not true. Conflict is inevitable : throughout history and all over the globe, conflict between national and local arrangements will be found. We cannot get away from it. However it is organised, unfettered expenditure is impossible, because it is impossible to escape the economic facts of life : at the end of the day, we cannot spend what we have not got. Why, then, is the debate not about the provision of services? Opposition Members tried to mock me on that score. I accept that the range of services available is an important issue, and one that the House debates regularly ; the level and cost of services, and whether there is waste, are also important subjects, but they are not at issue tonight. They all relate to the needs of local people, which Opposition Members have addressed time and again--without saying a word about affordability, which is what the Government have asked us to consider. The question of needs is entirely separate. To confuse the two subjects is like confusing income with expenditure. Opposition Member after Opposition Member has stressed the importance of need ; but someone must pay, even if it is not the local charge payer. If Labour ever return to power, and if a Labour Government flatly refuse to address the question "Can we afford it?", the International Monetary Fund will be back. If Labour Members have not learnt that lesson yet, I hope that the country will note that they are willing to take us back down the road to bankruptcy by refusing to consider affordability. We must ask how much local government should spend. It does not matter how the money is raised or on what it is spent. Should the amount be limited and, if so, in what way should we limit it?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly asked us to answer two questions, and not one Opposition Member even attempted to answer them. He asked whether central Government should have the power to limit and whether they should use that power. The answer to the second question is simple, because there is no point having powers if no one is willing to use them. The Secretary of State has such power, and therefore answers his own question.

I feel sorry for any Secretary of State in such circumstances. Matters would be a great deal simpler if Parliament provided 100 per cent. of local government expenditure. In such a scenario the control of expenditure would be simple. But, rightly, Britain does not work like that. We allow for an element of local choice and permit priorities to be decided locally.

Column 419

Mr. Allen McKay : The Government stop local decision making.

Mr. Wilshire : We do not. We question to what extent such powers should be unfettered, and that is a different matter. Should councils have unfettered powers? As the result of my intervention earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Dagenham answered yes to that question. He had used the term "in extremis" and I asked whether there should be any control. He said that there should be no control over what happens locally but made an exception in the case of fraud. The message from the Opposition was that there should be no control. The Leader of the Opposition expressed the opposite view when he launched the Labour party's local government conference at Eastbourne. He said :

"We are in the process of discussion and negotiation on which is the best way to maintain local authority expenditure within negotiated limits."

There we have it. The hon. Member for Dagenham says that local authorities should be allowed to do what they like, but the Leader of the Opposition talks about "within negotiated limits." Perhaps before the end of this two- day debate the Opposition will once and for all clarify Labour policy. Perhaps the Opposition Member who winds up will tell us what happens if beer and sandwiches at No. 10 do not result in negotiated limits. Will a Labour Prime Minister sit on his hands and abdicate his responsibility to govern or will he introduce controls? We are back to the central issue. Will the Labour party control expenditure in extremis?

The Opposition must try to understand why expenditure must be limited. They have not addressed that issue, so I shall do it for them. Somebody must ask what people can afford and what the economy can bear.

Mr. Boateng : People should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Mr. Wilshire : Exactly ; the hon. Gentleman is giving me enormous help. I accept that there is a case of sorts for allowing people to decide locally what they can afford. However, people cannot escape the national implications of their decisions. When they decide on local expenditure they are deciding on 26 per cent. of Britain's public expenditure. Such decisions affect inflation, unemployment and take-home pay and remove the scope for people to take care of themselves and their families. We cannot escape the market system. There is no point in behaving like an ostrich and pretending that that system does not exist.

Perhaps Opposition Members should seek out their leader and try to sort out their differences with him because he and I agree that there should be a limit on council expenditure. Who should set that limit? Parliament should set it because no council is an island. The spending of every council affects the national economy. No local council has secure boundaries. It may take decisions that people do not like, but one cannot pass laws to stop people moving round, and that further undermines the economy.

There is unequal distribution of wealth. There is no point in simply saying that local councils will get on with it, because there always has to be a mechanism within a state to redistribute money from the rich to the poor. I for one--I hope that all Labour Members agree with me--do not wish to see redistribution of wealth taken away from the sovereign Parliament and handed to local councils. It

Column 420

needs to be Parliament that does this for another reason. This is a small island, and wild variations in public expenditure, and in taxation, between areas that are close together will put an intolerable strain on the economy.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Does the hon. Gentleman think that these arguments apply equally to private companies? For example, do they apply to GEC in Coventry, which is sacking 600 people, and thereby reducing the local economy and raising unemployment? Should there not be controls on such decisions?

Mr. Wilshire : Fortunately, this is not a debate about GEC or private companies. This is about local authorities, and their effect on public expenditure. Instead of saying these wild things, I suggest a test that Labour Members might care to use. Would they like to think through who is best at what when trying to arrive at a decision? Local councils are best at assessing local need, and in responding to it, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said. They are best at service assessment, and arranging service provision. Parliament exists to settle what is best for the nation, and the economy of the nation is one such key issue. That explains why the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North- East was wrong to suggest that, if the Government cap, they should say what should be cut. He misunderstands who is best at what. The Government will settle what expenditure limits there must be, and local councils, which are closest to the people, must sort out the priorities.

If Parliament sets the limitation, how is it to be done? Any Labour Member who scuttled up to the Library would not take long, looking at my contributions to the broader debate, to discover that I am on record in a number of places as saying that I would not start from here. But that is irrelevant to this debate. Charge capping is the only mechanism available to the Secretary of State by which he can limit expenditure. To quote the hon. Member for Dagenham, "in extremis", the Secretary of State must use his powers. I believe that that is what the Labour party was saying. How to make a different limitation will be discussed in the review of the community charge, but for the moment we are being asked to address how much local government should spend, and this is the only way to control it.

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton) : Is it not implicit in my hon. Friend's argument that as, over the past 10 years, a small number of local authorities have been breaking the rules and conventions that govern local government and local government spending, those minorities should be dealt with by charge capping? It is most important for our Government and party to have regard to the considerable efforts by elected councillors and officials, particularly in Conservative authorities, who try all the time to keep spending down.

Mr. Wilshire : That is right. I started by saying that confusion was the worst part of many a debate on local government, and the confusion on which I have been focusing is that between income and expenditure--it has not been understood by Labour Members. The other point is that made by my hon. Friend. There is confusion about the true nature of the central Government/local government relationship. The two form an interlocking part of a social system. One cannot get away from that. They cannot be separated, and they cannot exist without

Column 421

tension. That is why every debate on local government--here or anywhere else--is full of pleas for democracy and full of wonderful comments about people attacking democracy or defending it. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), who is not here now, produced a splendid example. He said that 62 Labour party members serve on his council, that it has only two Conservative members and that he was returned to this place with a majority of 22,000 and they all wanted local freedom. We could all play that game. Thirty-eight Tories and two Labour party members sit on my local borough council, and my majority is only about 2,000 less than his. My constituents wanted both the borough council and the county council to be capped. We can all play the local democracy game--what the people want-- but it does not get us very far.

Local government and central Government are a partnership. Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, local government is more than a creation of this place and it is more than the deliverer of services. It has to settle local priorities. If Parliament were ever stupid enough to abolish local government, something else would rise, phoenix- like, out of the ashes. Local government is not free-standing ; it is not exempt from having to face up to the economic facts of life. The correct partnership, which must be understood, is that Parliament sets the overall limits of expenditure for the country and the redistribution of wealth while local government settles its own priorities and makes its own arrangements for the delivery of services. If that partnership breaks down, it is the duty of Parliament and the Government to act. That relationship has broken down. Local government expenditure has gone beyond the limit that we can afford. It is the Government's duty to act. It is also the duty of every democrat in the House to vote tomorrow for the orders.

11.36 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : It is a cruel and unusual punishment to be required to sit on these Benches at this hour and listen to speeches such as the one that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the even worse speech of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). Charming and entertaining though she doubtless is, I have seldom heard such a farrago of extremist Conservative ideology and sheer nonsense. She excelled herself in the venom that she displayed towards local government. It would be dangerous for Opposition Members simply to sit back and barrack the hon. Lady--although we have to sometimes--and to dismiss her as merely an aberration within the Conservative party. She is nothing of the kind.

There has been a sea change in the Conservative party. From being the party which was concerned to preserve local government autonomy, it has become the party which is hellbent on undermining it at every turn. This is but one of a series of measures directed towards that end. It would be understandable if there were any logic in the orders that we are debating, but that logic is missing. When similar measures were last brought before the House, we were told that councils would be capped in this

Column 422

financial year only if their expenditure was excessive, or if they acted recklessly or irrationally, or if they intended to prove some kind of distorted political point.

During the previous two years, my authority, the London borough of Brent, was not rate or poll tax-capped. The reason is clear. It did not come into any of the categories outlined by the Government as being ones that would determine whether a council should be capped. Had the borough been allowed to set the level of poll tax that it had intended to set, it would have meant, in effect, a 17 per cent. cut on the previous year's local taxation. Yet the Government still imposed a cap, and in circumstances that are likely to maximise the hardship for my constituents. It does not make sense to impose a cap in that way.

What will it mean for the already hard-pressed poll tax payers in Brent? We need not rely on anything that can be dismissed as rhetoric or politically motivated invective. We have only to listen to what local government officers say will be the consequences for services. What do they say about social services? The options include the closing of a nursery. I wonder what the hon. Member for Billericay thinks about that. She identified nurseries in her area that will be closed. There will be a reduction of 72 nursery places in my borough.

A flat rate of £1 per person will be charged for those attending family day care centres and a charge of £5 per week for day care. The jobcentre is to be closed ; the management of residential homes is to be transferred from the public to the private sector, with the inevitable drop in standards that will follow ; a day centre for people with learning difficulties will be closed ; there will be standard charges of £3 and £5 per week for home care ; and there will be an increase in charges for meals on wheels. It goes on and on and on. My constituents cannot take any more. The borough's services have been pared to the bone and there is nothing left. Although the borough was not capped in the two preceding years, and although it is recognised that it is seeking to put its house in order, the Government are still imposing a cap.

The position of education in the borough is almost worse than that of social services. The officers--not the politicians, of any political party- -in the borough say that we are on the verge of losing 350 teachers and that certain evening classes will close. There will be a cut in the number of discretionary awards, when already not a week passes during which a bright and committed young person--very often from a deprived and disadvantaged background--who is trying to make something of his life comes to me saying that he cannot obtain a grant to pursue a vocational course, be it in catering, the law or whatever.

The misery that the measure will compound--not cause, as we have had a decade of misery under this Government--knows no bounds. Social services and education are just two areas. I say nothing about the fabric of the community in Brent, about the quality of life, the environment, the streets and the homes in which people are required to live. The Minister's answer is, "Collect more rents." I recognise and support measures that are taken by local authorities and every encouragement that the Government can give them to ensure that due rents are collected and that the housing department gets its act together. That is important, but it is also important that Conservative Members understand and appreciate the level of deprivation in the community, which is now

Column 423

making old and disabled people choose between food and heat, and paying the poll tax. That is the reality-- [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Billericay laughing. She should not laugh-- Mrs. Gorman rose--

Mr. Boateng : No. The hon. Lady should not laugh. She should be prepared to take on board the extent to which

Mrs. Gorman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng : No, I do not intend to give way. We have already heard enough from the hon. Lady--

Mrs. Gorman : The hon. Gentleman should not tell untruths in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order.

Mr. Boateng : The reality is that the disadvantaged and the disabled are suffering and cannot afford to pay the poll tax. The orders will make that situation even worse.

Opposition Members make no apology for the anger that we feel about these provisions. I cannot believe that some Conservative Members are oblivious to the suffering that is now being caused in our communities. One need only have eyes to see and ears to hear to know about the cries coming from those who can least afford to pay the poll tax or to suffer the extent of the cuts that are being made in vital services as a result of the legislation.

We shall continue to say that the whole basis on which the calculation of the capping procedure is based is flawed. My constituency has been erroneously designated as an "outer London" borough and has been treated accordingly, yet it has all the problems of an inner-city area. The calculation breaks down when there is an appreciation of the existing deprivation in my constituency. Let us see what setting the cap level for Brent actually means. The Government relied on a formula of standard spending assessment, in which Brent is classified as an outer-London borough. Although it is the eighth most deprived borough in the whole country, it is designated as an outer-London borough and does not receive the benefits that an inner London borough would receive in terms of the calculation of the level and extent of the cap. Had it done so, it would have been allowed £8.75 million more expenditure. That is the reality. The Government would then have found it reasonable for us to set a poll tax £5 higher than the one that they ultimately sought to cap. That is the way the figures work out. That is the nonsense of this measure.

I ask the Minister who is to reply tomorrow to address the question how a borough such as Brent can have its assessment level calculated as an outer- London borough when it has all the characteristics of an inner-London borough and all the problems of deprivation that such a borough would experience.

The people of Brent want an answer to that. They want to know why the democratic procedures have been swept away in this legislation. They want to know why Ministers and their civil servants seem to have turned a blind eye to the hardship that their measures are causing. They know only too well that answer will there be none. They do not expect anything else from the Government and, in due course, their votes will ensure that this measure is confined to the dustbin, as it so richly deserves to be.

Column 424

11.49 pm

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : I rise to speak tonight on behalf of my local authority, Hammersmith and Fulham but first, I wish to comment on the speeches of the last two Conservative Members who spoke. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) admired the United States system which she would have the Government follow. I remind her that in many United States cities life expectancy for children is at third-world levels. The reason is precisely the type of services that she described.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is not only confused but, to put it kindly, naive, or, to put it more crudely, childish if he believes that the way in which the Government have drawn up the standard spending assessment does not affect income and expenditure and dramatically affect the services on offer in the local authority and their efficiency. The standard of services impacts on our constituents. All hon. Members, whether Labour or Tory, would do no service to our constituents if they did not draw attention to that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid the question, that is his responsibility, not ours.

The cuts imposed on Hammersmith and Fulham amount to £11.7 million. That is a lot of money and it will hurt a lot of people. One reason why I object to it so strongly is that we know that the Government have fiddled the figures. Many Conservative councillors, to their credit, admit that. When the Government were asked at the last Environment Question Time how many local authorities had complained about their SSA, they refused to answer. The reason why they refused to answer was the same reason why the Secretary of State's speech was so uncharacteristically empty of content. The Government know that Conservative local authorities are as deeply worried as Labour ones about how the poll tax has been assessed and implemented. It is daft to do what local authorities across the board are being asked to do. I intend to give just one example of many of what I would call perverse incentives. It pays a local authority to close a unit to encourage fostering and adoption and take more children into care. The way in which the Government have fixed the SSA means that an authority receives more if it has more children in care. Yet the aim of a modern social services system is to keep children out of care. The moral of the story is, "Do not do that, or your standard spending assessment will be affected."

The 1981 census has been referred to, from which the Government took much of their information. Hammersmith and Fulham is a classic example of how that is out of date. The Government agreed to let into Britain many Iranians, Vietnamese, Sri Lankan and Polish refugees. Many such refugees live in my constituency. None of them was included in the 1981 census and we receive nothing for them. The composition of the population has changed dramatically since 1981 and the Government should recognise that.

There are even more bizarre examples. The SSA estimates that we have 186.9 km. of roads in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The figure is 189.6 km. I assume that it is a typing error. Poll tax payers in Hammersmith will have to foot the bill for an extra £43,990 because of a typing error, yet the figure cannot be changed. Apparently that is the Government's position.

Column 425

Capital spending included in the SSA understates the outstanding debt considerably. The Government have the figures so why do they understate it? The figures are known, and are not secret, but the Government understate the debt in the SSA. If the accounts are wrong on either the income or expenditure side, the council cannot give the level of service required.

More than anything else we need nursery school places. Yet that is an area that is likely to be cut. The CBI, a close friend of the Government, often says that we need to support greater provision of nursery places. If we need to support it, why will the London area, which has fairly good provision of places because of the Inner London education authority, be forced at least to hold back the number of places and in many areas to cut it as a result of the absurd assessment?

We are asked to take over the education function from the Inner London education authority, and the implications are enormous. There is no way that we can find £11.7 million without it having a serious impact on other major services. It is significant that Conservative councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham cannot devise a budget to produce that £11.7 million without major surgery on other services. The Government talk of peripheral areas and of saving a few thousand pounds here and there, but that will have no real impact in producing the money that is needed.

The Government take no account either of leisure areas such as Wormwood scrubs. What are we supposed to do--start charging people if they want to take a walk there? Is that what the Government want? It is certainly what the hon. Member for Billericay wants. The Government impose on local authorities a duty to provide such facilities, so presumably we shall have to charge for them. The situation in respect of education is desperately serious. Many children come from other boroughs which we then have to bill. The Minister knows that we cannot assume that we shall receive that money within the first 12 months. In many cases, we will not see it for 18 months, yet we will be given no help. The figure could run into millions of pounds. The Minister cannot impose such changes and expect them to have no effect.

My local authority also has what is universally recognised as an excellent service provision for the incredibly high proportion of people in the borough with HIV. That is because a couple of the hospitals in the area specialise in that condition. Are we supposed to cut that service? Expenditure on such facilities can only increase. There are also housing implications because the local authority is bound to find homes for HIV sufferers. Nevertheless, there is no recognition by the Government

Column 426

of that burden. If we have to make cuts of £11 million, such services will be at risk. The local authority does not want that to happen. If the Government want those services provided, as they say they do, they must work out the SSA properly.

The Government have made no assessment either of community care implications. We know that those plans are being abandoned because of their likely effect on poll tax levels. Those services are incredibly expensive, but local authorities should be able to provide them. The Secretary of State complained about the expense of court actions. The additional cost to my local authority of collecting the poll tax is £2,900,000, which makes any court costs pale into insignificance. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we are wasting money by taking him to court, I say that he wastes much more. Let us also remember that not only would capping be illegal and unconstitutional in most western democracies, but so would the poll tax itself. It would be deemed unconstitutional in the United States, West Germany and a number of other countries because it is not based on the individual's ability to pay.

As to the Government's assessment of inflation, not even Conservative Members can believe that it is currently running at 4.76 per cent. It is 9.7 per cent. As a consequence, local authorities throughout the country have incurred extra expenditure. That level of inflation reflects the Government's incompetent management of the economy. After all, we were supposed to have zero inflation by now. That was the Government's great aim and the reason given for all that we have suffered.

It was said that the purpose of cutting expenditure was to bring down inflation, so that we would by now have an efficient economy. It has not worked out like that. The reality is very different. I would rather see the position we had in 1979, when we still had a manufacturing industry that could pay for the future of the people of this country, than the present position.

The poll tax is not only unfair, it is a large nail in the coffin of local government democracy in Britain. Tory councillors as well as Labour councillors believe that to be the case. When the Tory councillors in West Oxfordshire resigned they did so not just because of the poll tax, but because of the way in which the Government were using the housing benefits and housing issues to limit the rights and discretions of councils.

At the end of the day the elections matter. We won the elections and if the Government do not like it, they should challenge us at the ballot box and not in the way that they are conducting this debate. It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [10 July].

Debate to be resumed this day.

Column 427

Mark Woodward

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

12 midnight

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton) : The case that has prompted me to call for this debate is that of the tragic death while on holiday last summer in north Devon of 13-year-old Mark Woodward whose family live at Buglawton in my constituency. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Minister and the House would wish me to extend to Mark's parents, Jim and Eileen Woodward, to his sister, Lisa, and to his family and friends our deepest sympathy in their loss. To lose a child is a cruel and deep blow which can never be forgotten and which changes irrevocably the lives of those left behind. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr Speller) would want to be associated with that expression of sympathy, not least because he will participate later in this debate.

If anything good is to come out of this case, it will do so because of the determination of the Woodward family to ascertain the true facts of what happened, have them acknowledged in public--which this Adjournment debate achieves--and, as a result, instigate changes to ensure that such a tragedy can be avoided in future.

It may help the House if I recount briefly what happened. Mark was staying at the home of his uncle, Mr. John Smith, in Ilfracombe for a week of his summer holidays. At approximately 4 pm in the afternoon of Wednesday 16 August he went to Rapparee cove with his cousin Ben also aged 13.

Rapparee cove is a well-known and popular bathing beach. The boys played on the rocks, as young boys will, and amused themselves by jumping from the rocks into the sea. Mark's cousin Ben relates that about 10 minutes later the sea became rough with the incoming tide while he was still in the water. He was unable to climb out on to the rock where Mark was standing. Ben was thrown continually against the rocks, but Mark was too high up to reach down and assist him. Ben was obviously getting into difficulties.

In an act of great bravery, which has since been recognised posthumously, Mark Woodward jumped into the sea to save his cousin. He grabbed Ben's legs and forced him up to the surface. For a while they were both flung against the rocks and later Ben was found to be badly bruised on his back and legs.

A large wave broke around them which swept Ben up onto the rocks, but which carried Mark to more open water. Ben saw Mark climb momentarily onto a partly submerged rock before being swept back into the sea. Witnesses on the beach relate that Mark turned in the water, removed his beach shoes and waved to onlookers, seemingly to inform them that he was all right.

It then appears that Mark, who was a very strong swimmer, decided to swim with the current around the slight headland into an adjacent cove where the water appeared calmer, presumably also to wait for assistance.

An inquest was held at which evidence was given on how and when the coastguard was alerted and what action was subsequently taken. The questions that remained unanswered, and which in some cases were unasked, caused Mr. Woodward to develop profound concerns about the way in which a 999 emergency call to the coastguard by a witness, Mr. Kevin Richards, had been

Column 428

handled. Those questions have highlighted concern widely felt, I understand, in the south-west about the way in which emergency coastguard services are now provided to the north Devon coast. Because of the persistence of Mr. Woodward and his family the facts have emerged and it is clear that the rescue services were not activated soon enough because of human error and misjudgment at the Milford Haven and Swansea stations.

We now know that the first 999 call at Swansea was from Mr. Kift reporting one person who appeared to be cut off by the tide. I understand that that is not an uncommon event at Rapparee. The second 999 call, which was re- routed via Milford Haven because of a fault, was answered a minute and a half later. It was from Mr. Richards who reported clearly that two lads at Rapparee were in the water and being swept onto the rocks.

At the inquest Mr. Richards was subjected to cross-examination by the solicitor representing the coastguard, who seemed to want to suggest that Mr. Richards had said that two boys were "trapped against the rocks". That was not so and the British Telecom tapes proved beyond doubt that Kevin Richards acted correctly and gave accurate information which, sadly, was not acted upon immediately. It was not until Mr. Richards's second emergency call, answered by the coastguard at 4.35, that the helicopter at Chivenor was tasked. It arrived on the scene 10 minutes later. That helicopter should have been, activated immediately it was known that two boys were in the water. The correct evaluation of the situation was not made by personnel on duty at Swansea : if it had been the outcome might have been different for the Woodward family.

This experience begs the question, what went wrong? In an answer to a parliamentary question that I put down inquiring of my hon. Friend the Minister the reasons for the delay in sending the rescue services he replied that it was not considered that there was any delay on the part of Her Majesty's Coastguard at Swansea in acting on the information received regarding the tragic incident.

It is patently obvious to one and all that there was delay and that my hon. Friend was gravely in error in giving the House that reply. Furthermore, in a letter in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North, he stated :

"Given the initial information received from the Swansea centre from a known reliable source, a member of the RNLI, the response was correct and conformed with current laid down instructions and advice"

That reply neatly side-stepped the fact that the information given by a second source within a minute and a half of the first source was totally ignored. It is obvious that current laid down instructions and advice need to be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

The chief coastguard is presiding over a service that is understaffed, underpaid and most important, attempting to do a job without adequate training and retraining. I have never met the chief coastguard in person, but I have seen him interviewed on television when he has stonewalled questions. I am amazed and horrified by his arrogant and high-handed manner, which can do nothing for the reputation or the morale of the service that he heads. My hon. Friend the Minister must bear that in mind and address the two other questions.

What part has the closure of Hartland played in the lack of local knowledge of the north Devon coast, which is apparent from the confusion shown at Swansea on 16

Next Section

Home Page