Home Page

Column 431

House of Commons

Wednesday 6 November 1991

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT

Council House Sales

1. Mr. Knox : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine) : Between April 1979 and June 1991 almost 1.3 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

Mr. Knox : Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is a measure of the popularity of selling council houses? But should not more of the proceeds from such sales be devoted to building additional houses, particularly for the elderly and one-parent families?

Mr. Heseltine : I know of my hon. Friend's concern, which is shared by the Government. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Housing Corporation's spending is set to rise from £1.1 billion in 1990-91 to more than £2 billion in 1993-94. Many of the people to whom he referred will gain from that.

Mr. Winnick : Why not take care to ensure that homes which have been sold off are replaced? Is not the Secretary of State concerned that nearly 7,000 families per month are losing their homes because they cannot keep up their mortgage repayments? Under the proposed scheme many such people will be unable to remain in their homes. Will the Secretary of State recognise at long last that there is an acute housing crisis in Britain? He talks about the number of dwellings that are sold off, but we want to ensure that people who are in such desperate plight can live in affordable rented accommodation.

Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman wants to keep people living in council houses, which they want to own, under Labour control for Labour party benefit. We were elected to pursue different policies and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Patrick Thompson : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will be visiting Norwich on 15 November? When he does so, will he take the opportunity to persuade Norwich city council to take a more imaginative approach not only to the sale of council houses but to provision for the homeless and to housing matters generally?

Column 432

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend is right that I shall be visiting Norwich and I confirm that it is part of a series of visits being paid by me and my ministerial colleagues responsible for housing so that we can talk face to face with local authorities about the housing that they provide, in the presence of representatives of their tenants' associations.

Mr. Trimble : The Secretary of State will agree that a great achievement of the current Administration has been the sale of many public authority dwellings to their tenants. In the light of that, will he suggest to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that it would be a retrograde step for him to repeal the right-to-buy legislation in Northern Ireland, as he proposes?

Mr. Heseltine : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman so admires our foresight in introducing the right-to-buy legislation in the early years of the present Administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a man of great wisdom and he will make the appropriate judgments with regard to Northern Ireland which I shall support.

Planning

2. Mr. Favell : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the European Commission in the planning process.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo) : A number of Community measures affect the planning proces including in particular the directive on environmental assessment. The Commission has the duty to ensure that member states properly apply Community law and it is in this connection that they have recently initiated infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom on the environmental assessment directive. We will provide a full response to its complaint, but are confident that our implementation of the directive is fundamentally sound.

Mr. Favell : The A6, which runs through the middle of Stockport, causes untold misery to my constituents, who have been waiting for a bypass for many years. They are now told that the bypass is likely to be delayed by the Commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that, like the channel tunnel rail link, this is a nook and cranny into which the Commission should not poke?

Mr. Yeo : I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern. The Commission's role is clearly confined to ensuring that environmental procedures are properly followed. Decisions about the merits of any individual case remain a matter for the appropriate United Kingdom authority--and that is how we intend to keep it. I sympathise with my hon. Friend because the bypass to which he refers was first proposed in the 1970s. In my view, the lengthy delay reflects how careful we are in this country properly to examine any major planning scheme.

Mr. Simon Hughes : May we have less humbug from the Government about environmental impact assessment directives? Was not the project commended to a Committee by the present Secretary of State for Health, when he was a Minister of State in the Department of the Environment? Did not the European Commission alert the Government in January and then write to the Government

Column 433

on 24 March? Therefore, when the Prime Minister said in Harare, "We had no prior knowledge of it and the facts were not discussed with us," was not it simply untrue?

Mr. Yeo : When it comes to humbug, we cannot compete with the hon. Gentleman and his party. No notice was given by the Commissioner of his strenuous efforts to obtain extensive publicity for his letter on 16 October. No warning was given at all. The fact that such strenuous efforts to obtain publicity were made by Commissioner Ripa di Meana suggests that he was more concerned with publicity and propaganda than with protecting the environment.

Mr. Dykes : Did not the Commissioner behave irresponsibly in releasing his press release himself, rather than through the Commission's normal channels, after receiving the approval of the presidency and other Commissioners? Does not that situation illustrate the advantages of majority voting? There was a unanimous vote for the directive, including by the British Government, whereas if there had been proper majority voting, we could have organised a lobby of all member states to outvote it.

Mr. Yeo : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the manner in which Commissioner Ripa di Meana issued his press release. That was the subject of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Mr. Delors, who acknowledged in his reply the sensitivity of the issue. The British Government's record on the directive is outstandingly good. We were the third-fastest country to implement it and we have the fourth-best record of compliance with European legislation in the entire Community.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : With regard to the notice given by the Commission of its action, has the Minister read Hansard for 12 July, when I and my hon. Friends raised the question with the Minister for the Environment and Countryside? We recognise and appreciate the Under-Secretary of State's comment that the Commissioner's powers are confined to ensuring that procedures are followed. Will he therefore dissociate himself from the Foreign Secretary's remark that the Commissioner is trying to dictate through which field a road should run?

Mr. Yeo : The House knows full well that the Labour party has totally reversed its attitude to the Community on no fewer than five occasions over the past 30 years. On past form, we are due for another U- turn in the early 1990s. The hon. Lady's frantic attempts to suck up to Brussels on all occasions, regardless of how far the British people are pushed around, are unlikely to cut any ice with the Commission, but will certainly be noticed by the people who believe that British authorities should determine the merits of individual planning applications in this country.

Mr. Jessel : Is not it intolerable that foreign officials should decide either on the procedure to be followed with or the merits of British planning applications?

Mr. Yeo : It is no part of the British Government's policy to allow any foreign officials to decide the merits of planning cases in this country.

Column 434

Methane Sites

3. Mr. Vaz : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Government plans to assist local authorities that discover methane sites in their areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : The Government have set aside £28 million in the current financial year for allocation as supplementary credit approvals to local authorities carrying out gas control projects at closed landfill sites.

Mr. Vaz : I thank the Minister for the positive response of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside at a meeting at the Department yesterday afternoon, at which the Government gave Leicester city council permission to borrow £25,000 to survey the Appleton Park site in Rochney Mead. That will come as a comfort to local residents. Can the Minister give an assurance that the council will receive an equally favourable response next February, when it may ask for permission to borrow £400,000 to secure the site?

Mr. Baldry : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks. The cost of subsequent remedial works will, of course, be eligible for supplementary credit approval. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, we shall consider such an application once the cost has been determined following the present survey.

Local Government Finance

5. Sir John Farr : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to include the banding of property values in assessing new methods of local government financing.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo) : Our proposals for eight bands of property values are setout in the Local Government Finance Bill.

Sir John Farr : When making his assessments and calculations and increasing local government taxes, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that those who live in larger properties are not necessarily able to pay more than people who live in much more modest surroundings?

Mr. Portillo : An integral part of our arrangements is, of course, limiting the tax ratio, so that people living in more expensive properties pay more than those in cheaper properties, but not too much more. The maximum that can be paid in the most expensive property in a given area will be three times the amount paid in the cheapest. That is in marked contrast to Labour's proposals : Labour wants to return to an "envy tax", forcing those living in more expensive properties to pay exorbitant amounts. That is what happened under the rates.

Mr. Salmond : Can the Minister confirm that my calculations are correct? Under the banding proposals for the new council tax, is the Secretary of State for the Environment likely to pay about £270 for his central London accommodation? That is rather less than the

Column 435

amount likely to be paid by a young couple of first-time buyers in Aberdeen, who will probably pay £280 for a £35,000 house or flat. If those calculations are correct, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State whether he mentioned them in his speech yesterday evening in Aberdeen?

Mr. Portillo : People who live in local authorities that spend prudently will have lower council tax bills than those who live in authorities that spend less prudently. If my right hon. Friend has a residence in Westminster, he is likely to benefit from the low-spending policies of that excellent council, under the community charge, council tax or any other system.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the problems created for tenants, forestry workers, estate workers or clergymen who live in tied houses that are bigger than the houses that they would normally be able to afford and whose incomes are not reflected in their banding? This is a serious matter and I ask my hon. Friend to take note of it.

Mr. Portillo : I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. I have a feeling that we shall have considerable discussion about such issues when we debate the Local Government Finance Bill in Committee. That is one reason why I am so keen for the time for discussion to be allocated sensibly, allowing all such serious matters to be discussed fully.

Beaches

6. Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made towards achieving EC directives on cleaning up beaches by 1992.

Mr. Baldry : The £2 billion programme of improvements for bathing waters identified under the directive is on target to bring virtually all bathing waters into compliance by 1995.

Mr. Jones : As the seaside holiday season is so short, does the Minister agree that, in view of the quality of many of our beaches, the work must be done quickly in time for the next holiday season? Is not it time that the Government took the lead? A vast amount of resources is required to clean up our beaches and much of the work is done by privatised water companies, local authorities and volunteers.

Mr. Baldry : As I have made clear, a substantial sum is being invested by the water companies. About £2 billion is being spent on improvements to ensure that our beaches are brought into compliance with the directive as soon as is humanly possible.

Mr. Michael Brown : Will my hon. Friend note that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, only last week the Anglian water authority launched a massive investment programme for the specific purpose of cleaning up the whole of Cleethorpes beach, thus ensuring that Cleethorpes can go forward as a tourist centre worthy of its name?

Mr. Baldry : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every water company with coastal waters is spending millions upon millions of pounds on ensuring that all our bathing waters comply with the directive as soon as is humanly possible.

Column 436

Mr. Gareth Wardell : The Minister knows that there are two compliance standards under the European Community directive : one, for total coliforms, is 10,000 per 100 ml of water ; the other, for E Coli, is 2,000 per 100 ml of water. According to the latest information for summer 1990, the figure for the bathing beach at Aldingham near Barrow-in-Furness was, for the filthiest sample, over 1,600,000 E Coli per 100 ml of water and, for the same beach, over 1, 800,000 total coliforms. Does the Minister bathe there often?

Mr. Baldry : The method for testing bathing water here is exactly the same as the Commission uses to assess compliance in all member states. The method that we use to test water was fully supported in recent reports by the National Rivers Authority and the Select Committee on the Environment. We have the most comprehensive sampling regime in Europe and look at bathing water quality throughout the year.

Mr. John Marshall : Will my hon. Friend confirm that the level of investment by the water industry, now that it has been privatised, is very much greater than when it was under public ownership? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of Opposition Members to call for more investment without saying how they would pay for it?

Mr. Baldry : Yes, Sir. It is worth recalling that the Labour party so mismanaged the economy that at the behest of the International Monetary Fund it had to slash, overnight, investment in the water industry.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Will the Minister admit that the privatised water companies are diverting the funds that they have available into buying hotels and waste companies instead of speeding up the implementation of the directive? The construction industry is in such a bad shape that there are plenty of opportunities for speeding up the programme to clean our beaches. Is not it important to make sure that annex 5 of the international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships is properly policed--in British waters at least?

Mr. Baldry : I am not confident that the Opposition understand the concept of £2 billion. Millions of pounds are being spent by the water companies. To take only a 40-mile section of the Yorkshire coastline, £30 million is being spent at Scarborough, £15 million at Filey, £9 million at Sandsend and £6 million at Robin Hood's bay. Millions of pounds are being spent to enhance and improve water quality and to ensure that our bathing waters comply with the European Community directive as soon as is humanly possible. The expenditure of a sum of money as large as £2 billion would not have been possible under a state- controlled nationalised industry.

Housing Association Tenants

7. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to enable housing association tenants to own their own home.

Mr. Heseltine : Secure tenants of housing associations normally have the right to buy, unless their landlord is a charity or a fully mutual co- operative. Housing associations, including charities, can also give grants under the Housing Corporation's tenants incentive scheme to

Column 437

help tenants move out and buy a home of their own, thereby releasing vacancies for reletting to homeless families.

The Government are discussing with the Housing Corporation the introduction of a programme of do-it-yourself shared ownership, under which tenants would find property on the open market which they would then buy jointly with a housing association. This scheme would be targeted on existing tenants in order to release property for reletting to the homeless.

Mr. Bowis : Although that is welcomed in most parts of the country, does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of property prices in London, it is difficult for people to move to other properties within the area? Palms would be laid before his feet if he came to Battersea in the near future with the keys of home ownership for housing association tenants under the right-to-buy scheme--something which they were promised in an earlier Parliament, but which was delayed by an unholy alliance in another place. Will my right hon. Friend look again at that possibility, particularly for London?

Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend realises that there was a formidable political dialogue about that issue and we have no plans to reopen it now. I am always pleased to receive invitations to visit Battersea and I think that I have always accepted them.

Mr. Fearn : Following the Minister's comments in the House on 12 July about commonhold, will he say whether his right-to-buy policy will be extended to long leaseholders who, at present, are not covered by legislation?

Mr. Heseltine : As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have no further announcements to add to my statement on commonhold. I have clarified the position on housing association tenants in the terms of the consultation to which I referred today.

Sir Anthony Grant : In addition to housing association tenants, will my right hon. Friend consider the position of tenants of Crown estates, many of whom have lived in their houses and taken great care of them for many years? Is not it only fair that they should have the same rights as tenants of council houses?

Mr. Heseltine : I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we will extend the rights to cover that area. I shall look at the matter again in view of my hon. Friend's interest, but I would not wish to give any further commitment.

Local Government

8. Mr. Watts : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of those responding to the local government structure review favoured an increased number of unitary authorities.

Mr. Portillo : Of those who commented directly on the principle of moving to a single tier of local council, the vast majority expressed support for it.

Mr. Watts : What representations has my hon. Friend received from Slough? Is he aware of the strong cross-party support in Slough for the abolition of Berkshire county council and its replacement by unitary authorities based on existing boroughs and districts?

Column 438

Mr. Portillo : We received a representation from Slough. As my hon. Friend says, it made the case for unitary authorities in general and for that solution to be applied in Slough. My hon. Friend will be pleased that we propose to set up a local government commission so that such views can be considered seriously in due course.

Mr. Hardy : Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed support for unitary authorities and the term is now used frequently. Does the Minister realise that it causes a great deal of anxiety among members of parish, town and similar authorities? What is the Government's attitude to parish councils and so on, which have had to put up with a fair amount of inadequate concern from Her Majesty's Government in recent years?

Mr. Portillo : My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State recently addressed a conference of town councils. The Government have not neglected them by any means and we think that parishes have an important role. The concept of unitary authorities is in no sense meant to detract from the good work that the parishes do.

Mr. Cran : My hon. Friend will understand the enthusiasm of my constituents for a return to a single-tier, all-purpose local authority based on the borough of Beverley. To do so, we have to get rid of Humberside county council. Will my hon. Friend clarify the statement that he made yesterday and tell the House whether Humberside will be the first local authority to be considered by the new local government commission, or whether it will be among the first? If it is the latter, what does that mean?

Mr. Portillo : It means precisely that Humberside will be in the first batch of authorities that we will recommend for consideration by the local government commission. To clarify that a little more, it means that the local government commission will have a regional structure. It will be able to consider more than one place at a time and I believe that Humberside should be one of the areas in the first batch. It will be one of the first places to be considered. I hope that that makes the position clear to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gould : Why have the Minister and the Secretary of State in their Local Government Bill passed up the chance of proceeding on the basis of consensus? The Opposition would support a local government commission and we support the idea of flexibility to meet local needs. Why, therefore, are the Government insisting on a process that is apparently piecemeal, long-drawn-out and manifestly open to political gerrymandering? Are they serious about putting local government through the further chaos of creeping restructuring, which can only add to the confusion already felt by so many in local government about who does what? Have not they already done enough damage to local government without this further turn of the screw?

Mr. Portillo : As usual, the confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. Our consultation document, which the hon. Gentleman welcomed when it was issued, was perfectly clear and the Bill that we have published is in line with it. I am unaware of any response from the hon. Gentleman, because he does not wish to consult the

Column 439

Government. His remarks are wholly inconsistent not only with what he said before but with what his colleagues in another place are saying.

Mr. Latham : Is my hon. Friend aware that, after their constructive meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), my constituents are optimistic that they will have Rutland back as a unitary authority under the re-elected Conservative Government?

Mr. Portillo : After meetings with my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary most people are pleased, because of his renowned courtesy. It was important that we set out that the guiding principle of the local government commission should be to establish the proper services to be provided to local people, in line with their sense of local community--the sort of community with which they wish to identify. That is a welcome concept and I believe that, despite what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, it will be greeted warmly throughout the House.

Compulsory Competitive Tendering

9. Ms. Primarolo : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to come into effect.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key) : Our consultation paper, "Competing for Quality : Competition in the Provision of Local Services", which was published yesterday, proposes that compulsory competitive tendering should be extended to a range of local authority services, and should come into effect at different dates from late-1992 onwards.

Ms. Primarolo : Is the Minister aware that, for hundreds of thousands of women who work in local authorities, compulsory competitive tendering has meant that their pay has been cut, their hours lengthened and their terms and conditions considerably weakened? Given the Prime Minister's commitment to the cause of women's equality, will the Minister give an undertaking that compulsory competitive tendering will be cancelled as a gesture towards improving women's pay and conditions of work?

Mr. Key : Compulsory competitive tendering is non-discriminatory and I have no intention of going down that path. I reassure the hon. Lady that the value for money that is emerging has nothing to do with sex.

Mr. Squire : Will my hon. Friend confirm that, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), his independent review of the operation of CCT included statements from the chief executive of a Labour authority that compulsory competitive tendering had created a much more efficient and slimmer organisation and had highlighted inefficiencies that it had not previously seen? Is not the real answer that on this issue, as on so many others, the Labour party is in thrall to the public sector trade unions?

Mr. Key : Yes, I could not have put it better myself.

Mr. O'Brien : The report published by the Department of the Environment, to which the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) referred, giving the findings of the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham university on the first year of competitive tendering in local government only adds to the confusion that the

Column 440

Government have created about the role of local government in providing services to poll tax payers. There is no reference in the report to the quality of services to be provided under the competitive tendering procedure. Is not it time that the Government stopped messing about with the provision of local government services and delayed any further introduction of compulsory competitive tendering until the procedures and the quality of services have been resolved?

Mr. Key : No. It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman insists on looking backwards whenever we have questions in the House. The report has informed the Government's policies and if he would be so kind as to read the consultation paper, which we issued only yesterday, he would find that a quality threshold is specifically included in the extension of CCT to services such as architecture.

Mr. Summerson : While my hon. Friend is doing his best to persuade Labour councils of the virtues of competitive tendering will he point out to them that the provision of services to community charge payers is for the benefit of the entire local community and that it is not merely to provide a multiplicity of overblown, unproductive jobs in town halls?

Mr. Key : Yes, that is entirely the point. One of the advantages that Ministers gain in visiting a large number of local authorities of all shades of political opinion across the country is to learn of the unanimity of opinion that compulsory competitive tendering is good for the charge payers and for the recipients of services and that it is also good for the career structures of many of the jobs that go with it. It would be retrograde to go back on that.

Local Government Finance

10. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to visit Halifax to discuss local government funding.

Mr. Portillo : I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans, but I am sure that Ministers will wish to visit Halifax in force over the coming months.

Mrs. Mahon : Will the Minister join me in congratulating Labour- controlled Calderdale council, which was named recently in a report of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy as the second most efficient metropolitan council? Does not he think that that is a remarkable achievement as its standard spending assessment has, for some reason, been set lower than the metropolitan or national average? Does the Minister think that that is a good way to repay an efficient council which, if the same criteria are used this year for the SSA, will face £7 million of cuts? Is it not time that he abolished poll tax capping and allowed councils to get on with the job?

Mr. Portillo : I always find it puzzling, when the Government increase the standard spending assessments markedly year by year, to hear that that leads to cuts by local authorities. Calderdale's SSA increased by 18 per cent. last year. We do not yet have the figures for next year, but we know that the average increase in total standard spending will be 7.2 per cent. As the Government have increased the money ahead of inflation, I find such talk of cuts rather tiresome.

Column 441

Mr. Batiste : When my hon. Friend takes the opportunity to visit Halifax to discuss local government funding, will he consider the future of the joint committees in West Yorkshire which were established following the abolition of the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council? Will he consider especially the police authority and the growing concern in West Yorkshire that there must be better ways to fund that important service?

Mr. Portillo : My hon. Friend raises important matters. However, he will know that in the Local Government Finance Bill which we published yesterday we have bitten off a considerable amount of possible change with the establishment of the local government commission. I think that the matters that we have laid--or intend to lay--before the commission are already sufficient and I think that some of my hon. Friend's concerns may have to wait for another day.

Northumberland County Council

11. Mr. Amos : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the future of Northumberland council council.

Mr. Heseltine : Six principal local authorities and one other organisation from Northumberland responded to the consultation paper "The Structure of Local Government in England". Of these, four commented on the structure of local government in Northumberland, including the role of Northumberland county council. The other three responses were general comments on our proposals.

Mr. Amos : As all colleges and most schools will soon be free from local authority control, as more services will be put out to contract and as organisations such as Newcastle airport will be put into the private sector, where they properly belong, does my right hon. Friend agree--and I am sure that he will, because he is a reasonable man--that Northumberland needs a unitary authority, especially as Labour-controlled Northumberland county council constantly says that it does not have enough money to decorate schools but recently managed to find one third of a million pounds to give its senior officers a double figure salary increase and company cars?

Mr. Heseltine : I know that my hon. Friend will put those points with his customary eloquence to the local government commission that we are about to set up and that he will welcome the fact that we have set it up so that he is able to do so.

Mr. Bellotti rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Northumberland is a long way from Eastbourne, but let us see what the hon. Gentleman can do.

Mr. Bellotti : Will the Secretary of State assure us that new structures for local government in East Sussex and in Polegate and Willingdon in particular, will not be imposed on local communities against their wishes. Also, if local communities do not like the results of the local government commission, will he consider local referendums? If not, what will he propose?

Next Section

  Home Page