| Home Page |
Column 809
Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shoullike to make a short business statement.
The Opposition have decided that, instead of the debate on the national health service previously announced for the first half of tomorrow, there will now be a debate, until about Seven o'clock, on an Opposition motion described as "The Urgent Need for the Abolition of the Poll Tax". Afterwards, there will be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "Family Hardship in the Recession", followed by a motion to take note of the report by the European Court of Auditors for 1989 and a motion on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order.
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Is not the real reason why the Leader of the House has made a business statement not that the Opposition have changed the business for the Supply day, which could have been displayed in the No Lobby, but that the Government have made a mess of dealing with the European bank for reconstruction and development order in Committee and must now bring it to the Floor of the House? Will the Leader of the House guarantee that, when we debate the poll tax tomorrow, there will be a Minister able to give the House and the country a clear idea of whether the Government will stop dithering, swithering and muddling, and simply abolish it?
Mr. MacGregor : There are two reasons for my making a business statement today. First, the Opposition have changed the subject of tomorrow's debate, and I wanted, for the convenience of the House, to inform hon. Members. Of course, a Minister will be involved in the debate. Secondly, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that the European bank for reconstruction and development order went to the joint Committee on Statutory Instruments last Tuesday and some defects were found in the original order. A new order has been laid to remedy the defects. It could not be taken in Standing Committee in time for the order to go to the Privy Council scheduled for next week.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. May I say to hon. Members who are rising that their questions must relate directly to the change of business and nothing else.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : The Leader of the House has announced a debate to take place tomorrow, initiated by the Labour party, on the abolition of the poll tax. Does he have notice of the motion? He will recall that, when we last debated that subject, the Labour party proposed no alternative to the poll tax. When the voters have a choice, as they had in Ribble Valley, they will vote for a party that wants to abolish the poll tax and has a coherent alternative.
Mr. MacGregor : I do not want to start discussing the merits this afternoon, because they are a matter for tomorrow's debate, and an important Bill is to receive its Second Reading debate this afternoon. I do not think that the voters of Ribble Valley looked carefully at what the
Column 810
Liberal Democrats were putting forward--if they had, they would have come to a different view. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's substantive question, I do not have notice of any motion.Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West) : Does my right hon. Friend believe that the reason that the Opposition requested the change was because they were more concerned to explain away the record poll tax set by Lambeth borough council than in the health of the national health service?
Mr. MacGregor : I certainly expect, and suspect, that the issue of Lambeth's community charge will come up in tomorrow's debate.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : Given that there is to be a change of business tomorrow, is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister has not made a statement to the House about his discussions yesterday with the German Government? Surely we should have an opportunity to discuss such a vital issue.
Mr. MacGregor : The Prime Minister not only made an important speech yesterday, which I am sure all hon. Members heard, but answered questions on the issue this afternoon.
Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : If the Opposition have run out of things to say on the national health service, could we have a Government debate on the subject next week?
Mr. MacGregor : I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but that question goes beyond tomorrow's business.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : Would not a debate on the poll tax give the Prime Minister a good opportunity to answer the questions that he has refused to answer today? Will the Leader of the House get the Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box to express his regret for his enthusiastic support that he showed for that dreadful tax over the years when he was a senior member of the Government?
Mr. MacGregor : The debate will be on an Opposition motion, so I am sure that the House will be interested to hear the answers given about Opposition policies on the issue.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is widespread pressure from Conservative Members for a Question Time for questions to be put to the Opposition--
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is not in the business statement.
Mr. Allason : It is about tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member will have heard what I said-- questions must refer to the business for tomorrow.
Mr. Allason : Does my right hon. Friend agree that tomorrow afternoon would provide an ideal opportunity for the Opposition to detail their exact proposals for an alternative to the community charge?
Column 811
Mr. MacGregor : Certainly, since the Opposition have chosen the subject for tomorrow's debate, I have no doubt that many questions will be asked of the Opposition in that debate.Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : Is the Leader of the House aware that normally, when a new Member waits to take his seat, I would not ask a question, but as the Liberal Whip, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), chose to hold up the proceedings, I feel free to join in the questioning?
Will the Leader of the House look at his briefing material and tell us the last time a Leader of the House advised the House in a business statement about a change of business for an Opposition Supply day? In view of tomorrow's motion for the quick abolition of the poll tax, will Government Members be in the Lobby with us to vote against the abolition of the poll tax, or in the other Lobby--or will they be in both Lobbies?
Mr. MacGregor : The first point in the hon. Gentleman's question was a long way of delaying proceedings. There were two changes in tomorrow's business, and I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I informed it of that.
As for the vote, the hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what happens tomorrow.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. As this is such a narrow statement, the questions now are a little repetitive, so I shall take two more from each side, and then we shall move on.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Does the Leader of the House agree that to have a debate tomorrow on the community charge or the poll tax--call it what one will--is a gross misuse of parliamentary time? We are in the middle of a review, the result of which will be announced shortly, as the Prime Minister told us four times this afternoon. The Opposition were invited to say their piece and make their input into our review, but refused, although other parties agreed. What on earth are we wasting parliamentary time for?
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman should make that speech tomorrow.
Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes his point loud and clear. I cannot be held accountable for what the Opposition decide to do or how many times they change their mind.
Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : Surely the Leader of the House understands one thing about tomorrow's important debate about the poll tax. The rethink that is apparently going on in Government circles has nothing to do with fancy speeches in this place--it is all to do with the mass struggle, the gut reaction of working-class people throughout Britain, and the by-election.
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must make that speech tomorrow, if he is called. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question. These are debating points. Bring it to an end, Ron.
Column 812
Mr. Brown : It is unlikely that I will be called, because many people on the Left are not called. Could the Leader of the House arrange for members of the Anti-Poll Tax Union to meet Ministers to express their views and feelings about the poll tax? That is important.
Mr. Speaker : Order. Really, that has nothing to do with the business for tomorrow.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that two separate pieces of legislation brought about the community charge. Will he confirm that any proposals made by the Opposition or anyone else should take that into account? Shall we have the opportunity fully to debate both pieces of legislation?
Mr. MacGregor : I simply do not know what the Opposition will say tomorrow. The debate will be an opportunity to probe them on their position.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will the Leader of the House make arrangements tomorrow for the Prime Minister to put the Government's case on the poll tax? He has failed to do it until now. Is the Prime Minister waiting for George Bush to give him the answer?
Mr. MacGregor : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was waiting to get that in at Prime Minister's questions. If I may say so, it was a weak point. The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that we shall announce the outcome of the review at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that the Prime Minister will be fully in command of that.
NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath :
Michael Carr, Esq., for Ribble Valley.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made an important statement of policy in Germany, but no statement has been made to the House. I know that you do not have any direct control over that, Mr. Speaker, but surely, as a matter of accountability, when the Prime Minister makes an important statement that we are to capitulate completely to the Common Market, he should make the statement here or give an account of it so that he can be questioned on it. It is disgraceful that the Prime Minister is avoiding that accountability. Have you had any indication that the Prime Minister will have the guts to come to the House and make a statement?
Mr. Speaker : I have had no indication that there is to be a statement today. I did not even have a request for a private notice question.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Electricity Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Column 813
Training and Enterprise Councils
3.44 pm
Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for full public disclosure of the financial affairs and administrative decisions of training and enterprise councils.
I should like first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) for sitting up half the night to obtain this spot for me this afternoon.
I sought to introduce the Bill after having read a copy of a letter dated 12 December from the permanent secretary to the Department of Employment, Sir Geoffrey Holland, KCB, to all TEC chairmen about the first internal audits of TECs. The letter gives the findings of the first five audits of fully operational TECs. Sir Geoffrey Holland said that, because of the weaknesses in financial management that they reveal and the disquieting overall picture, he was drawing the matter to the attention of all TEC chairmen.
The second paragraph says :
"I attach a detailed note of the main weaknesses revealed. But the picture that emerges is one in which financial control weaknesses have led, and could continue to lead to substantial levels of overpayment of public funds either to individual Councils or by the Councils to providers. The Public Accounts Committee would not regard such a situation as satisfactory. And I write primarily because I am anxious that you should be able to defend yourself before the Public Accounts Committee should they call you at any time."
Sir Geoffrey Holland went on to say :
"I attach to this letter a detailed note of the audit findings but you will see that the weaknesses centre on :
a. claims by the Councils which could not be supported by adequate documentary evidence.
b. claims overstated by the inclusion of expenditure which was outside the terms of the contract ;
c. attendance records not being properly maintained by Training Providers :
d. financial appraisal and monitoring of providers not being carried out ; and
e. excessive working capital loans and substantial cash balances being held.
It is very probable that these same issues are occurring at other operational Councils which have not yet received a visit from my Internal Auditors."
That letter from the permanent secretary, Sir Geoffrey Holland, shows that Parliament needs to review the present position of TECs. How many right hon. and hon. Members realised, when the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" was announced, that the TECs would slip through the back door of Parliament without a Bill, without a Committee, without the usual scrutiny by Members, with no real debate or meaningful consultation, thrown together by devious means and given authority to spend some billions of pounds of taxpayers' money?
The Department of Employment said that the management of those bodies would be run by a board of at least nine but no more than 15. At least two thirds of the directors, including the chairman, must be local business leaders from the private sector who are chairmen, chief executives or top operational managers at local level or in major companies.
The composition of the boards and the reasons for the directive need careful scrutiny, because those are the very people whom the Department of Employment has been attempting over the years to encourage to introduce
Column 814
training in their companies and who have constantly and continually failed or, in most cases, never even attempted to introduce any company-run training scheme.It is passing strange, to say the least, that, as soon as the Government are prepared to pump money into new schemes, those overworked, busy, pressurised managing directors become interested overnight. Within 12 months, from March 1989 to March 1990, there were 65 potential TECs, with 600 directors or managing directors on their boards of management, all taking a new-found interest in training.
So what was the purpose of the transformation from employment training to training and enterprise councils? Was it to benefit the training programme, to provide better trainers, to give more and varied opportunities for trainees, for all the training managers to have sufficient funding to provide adequately for the training and expertise needed in the changing modern industrial world, or to help get through the recession and meanwhile provide a trained work force to overcome the challenge in the aftermath of the recession? Alas, it was nothing so ambitious, nothing with such forethought and constructive imagination. TECs were created to give private sector employers, backed by specially selected civil servants, the opportunity to run down what some training managers have taken a decade to build, and to destroy the whole concept of devoted trainers training trainees with patience and care, to enable them to develop and maintain a rightful, dignified position in the employment of their choice, with skills to maintain themselves and their families and to be of use to employers and their country in future. The training structure has been replaced with a system which caters for the concept of greed and malicious manipulation. Having rid themselves of the real purpose of training, the Government have replaced it with a system which directs funding and training places to their own firms, for personal greed, with easy backhand treatment of civil servants administering the system and without parliamentary scrutiny, with the excuse of plc cover to avoid answering the questions of hon. Members.
It is frightening to think that Parliament, with all its Select Committees to scrutinise the executive, has been hoodwinked into allowing such a system to be established. Already, 6,000 experts in training have been made redundant as a result of the £350 million reduction in Government spending on adult training--at a time when unemployment has been increasing constantly for 10 consecutive months.
The position is even worse when redundancies are particularly severe for the trainers in the voluntary sector. One group, Community Industry, specialising in training for special needs, has already declared 1,000 staff redundant. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders has already had notice that 10 of its projects will not be funded, and more are to follow. Places with many and varied organisations all around the country are being cut. The Secretary of State for Employment, having cut the budget by £350 million when TECs were introduced, announced on 26 February--no doubt aware of the general election round the corner--that an extra £120 million would be made available to TECs. There is a need for more funding, but with proper financial scrutiny,
Column 815
especially by Parliament, to prevent trainees being sent to TEC boards and companies in collusion with their chief executives and other officers.In Mid Glamorgan TEC, the chief executive officer, Mr. Alan Williams, has decided to cut a training organisation of 10 years' standing that trained 4,000 trainees. It was recognised throughout the Principality and praised by Ministers and others for a well conducted, organised and efficiently managed scheme, but Mr. Williams claimed that the organisation did not meet the training standards set by TECs. At the same time, he spends thousands of pounds advertising for new training managers whose training is not accessible, because they have yet to establish themselves. The places are brand new, or are in firms in a list approved by him or others.
The whole system lends itself to the possibility of great corruption. Private firms seem to have all the advantages. We need to know who makes decisions and on what basis decisions are made. Who receives the funding? What amounts do they receive? Hon. Members must be able to question everyone involved. All TEC meetings should be open to the public.
I am given to understand that, when the Mid Glamorgan TEC board met at 8 am on Tuesday 19 February, there was a decision of no confidence in the managerial staff. Yet they are still there. Why? Have they something to say, so they stay? Even the right-wing Bow Group of the Conservative party is pressing the Government to make sweeping changes. Phillip Virgo, the author of the report, recently claimed that the Government should ensure the quality--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has already had his 10 minutes. Will he please bring his remarks to a close?
Mr. Powell : --and relevance of current training bodies such as the training and enterprise councils, through the regular publication of performance figures, student placements and employment satisfaction. That accountability is what my Bill aims to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Dennis Turner and Miss Kate Hoey.
Training and Enterprise Councils
Mr. Ray Powell accordingly presented a Bill to provide for full public disclosure of the financial affairs and administrative decisions of training and enterprise councils : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
Column 816
Orders of the Day
Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, during the last few years I have accepted the responsibility on this side of the House for keeping you out of trouble. I always worry deeply when you stray a little from the straight and narrow. I refer to your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who raised a point of order about the need for a statement on the Prime Minister's visit to Germany and his discussions there. I was not a bit surprised when I heard you say that you had had no request for a statement, but I was absolutely flabbergasted when I heard you add that there had not even been a request for a private notice question.
As you well know, if an application is made for a private notice question and you refuse it, we on these Benches are strictly forbidden to raise the matter. In your final months of office, I should not like to see you making such an elementary mistake.
Mr. Speaker : I have to confess to the hon. Member and to the House that it was a mistake. I am not supposed to give my reasons. It slipped out.
A great many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. Therefore, I intend to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock.
3.57 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Our system of town and country planning has been in place for over 40 years, and by and large it serves us well. In a country which is as densely populated as ours, difficult decisions about the proper use of land are unavoidable. Most activities require land--homes, growing food, manufacture, transport, leisure. Conflict is not uncommon between those in both the public and private sectors who wish to change the use of land-- whether to provide public services such as schools, hospitals, roads and rail links, or private services such as new homes or shopping centres--and the interests of conservation and amenity and of local people who are reluctant to see change. The planning system provides the framework for resolving these inevitable conflicts. The Bill brings the system up to date, and enhances its credibility.
It does this by ensuring that planning decisions are made efficiently and effectively ; that they take proper account of the many interests involved ; that the system provides for as much certainty as possible for those who use it ; and that its provisions are properly enforced. Our aim is to strike the right balance between planning authorities and landowners ; and, in land compensation, between private interests and the public interest. I hope to explain the provisions of the Bill with those fundamental considerations in mind.
Many hon. Members are rightly exasperated at the ease with which people can flout planning controls and get away with it. The present enforcement systems are rightly criticised for their complexity and slow operation. That
Column 817
reduces public confidence in the development control system and appears to penalise those who comply with the rules. It can also adversely affect our environment.Clauses 1 to 11, and their Scottish equivalents, clauses 28 to 37, contain important measures to strengthen, improve, simplify and speed up the enforcement process. They are based broadly on the recommendations made by Mr. Robert Carnwath, QC, in his report of April 1989 entitled "Enforcing Planning Control". The Government, and indeed everyone concerned with the planning system, are grateful to Mr. Carnwath for his clear and succinct report.
Mr. Carnwath's recommendations were generally welcomed in the extensive consultation exercise that followed publication of the report. They provide a balanced package of improvements so that planning authorities can take effective enforcement action where necessary.
Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham) : The Association of District Councils compliments the Government on the improvements in the Bill but is conscious that measures contrary to the interests of planning can occur. No proceedings can be taken when a field is developed by gipsies without planning permission, who then assault officers of the local authority when they serve an injunction on them. Would it not be better if the Bill provided for a criminal offence, so that notices could be served by the police and whoever was responsible for those actions would have a criminal record, which would certainly act as a strong deterrent?
Sir George Young : Many Conservative Members feel strongly about this matter. I had the pleasure of receiving a delegation from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), when we discussed it at length. Clauses 2 and 3 will give local authorities additional powers, which may help with the problem that he described. The power to take an injunction against persons unknown will be especially helpful in dealing with gipsies, because it is sometimes difficult to get their names from them.
On the specific question of criminalisation, initially I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham that it would be right to bring the criminal law into play, but the Carnwath report persuaded me the other way. The House must take on board several arguments. The onus of proof in a criminal case is far higher than in a civil case. In a civil case, the balance of probability applies, but in a criminal case the onus is on the prosecution to prove it. The problem with creating a criminal offence is that it does nothing to remedy the offence. The local authority could apply to a magistrates court for an injunction and prosecute, but it may be weeks before the case is heard. Even if the case is won, the offence still occurred. To tackle the underlying injustice, the local authority would have to take enforcement action, so two parallel processes would be going on at the same time.
To reduce bureaucracy and achieve a better system, there must be a better enforcement system, with substantially increased penalties, which we are providing for in the Bill, rather than a criminally based system, which would not deal with the fundamental problem. I hope to say more about that later.
| Next Section
| Home Page |