| Home Page |
Column 133
Caravan Sites (Amendment)
3.32 pm
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ; to make further provision in respect of encampments of travelling people ; and for connected purposes. I am asking-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining for the ten-minute Bill leave the Chamber quietly, particularly those below the Gangway?
Sir Michael McNair Wilson : I ask the House to give my Bill a First Reading, conscious that many hon. Members also face problems arising from the illegal encampment of people who may be gipsies, but, who, as in my constituency, often belong to other groups variously titled--hippies, travellers, new age travellers, tinkers, drop-outs, didicoys and peace people. I submit that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is no longer relevant to meet the difficulties that such people create.
The ineffectiveness of the present law was vividly illustrated in west Berkshire recently when we faced the encampment of people who described themselves as new age travellers and who decided to park 20 vehicles illegally on a county council byway. The local people were infuriated by the camp and asked the police to move the travellers on. The police demurred on the ground that, as the county council had not designated a site according to part II of the 1968 Act, there was nowhere for the travellers to go. That prompted me to write to Berkshire county council asking when it intended to designate a site in the west of the county to meet the travellers' needs. The council responded that the Act referred only to sites for gipsies and that, as the travellers were not gipsies, the council had no responsibility for the matter. I then wrote to the council asking how it identified a gipsy from a traveller, but I did not receive an answer. Strictly speaking, the county council is right. Within the strictest interpretation, the 1968 Act applies to gipsies and not to travellers. It seems to me that the Act should be amended, the word "gipsy" dropped, and the phrase--suggested, I think, by the National Gipsy Council- -
"persons of a nomadic way of life"
substituted. At the very least, it would mean a reappraisal of the numbers of people involved in travelling, and thus a reassessment of the number of sites required. The figure of 11,544 gipsy caravans given in 1990 could increase dramatically, and the sooner that we know the scale of the problem, the sooner we can do something about it.
Despite the fact that the 1968 Act is now 24 years old, the Department of the Environment has set no time limit within which county councils must meet their statutory responsibility to designate sites. That would be another requirement of my Bill. Every county should have at least one site, and I suggest that that should happen within the next 12 months.
I go further. The number of people who have taken up a nomadic way of life has increased, and it is probably still increasing. I do not know why they choose that way of life, but that is their right in a free society and we must recognise it. If we are to avoid the endless aggravation that such people as travellers cause virtually wherever they go, the illegality of their encampments, the mess and rubbish that they leave behind, their lack of sanitation, and the fear
Column 134
of local people that travellers pay little attention to the law, cut timber at will, and poach--in other words, if we are to create some measure of harmony between modern nomads and the community--local authorities should be required to appoint a travellers' liaison officer whose task, much like that of community relations officers, would be to liaise with travelling groups, farmers and their representatives, such as the National Farmers Union, local land owners, and the police. I believe that some counties already have such a person.In turn, such groups of interested people, working with a local authority, could seek to create a pattern of short-stay transit sites, inconspicuous to the public but maintained by the local authority for travellers. Travelling groups should be able to discover from the local authority where sites are located, and those refusing to use them could be made subject to severe fines.
Clearly, the size of transit sites would vary according to the neighbourhood, but at least some should be able to cope with large vehicle convoys, such as those which make their way to Stonehenge, or which have over the past two years chosen the common around Hungerford as a weekend site.
Present police powers need revising. Currently, policing illegal encampments is a costly business. A large site can tie down as many as 100 constables and cost tens of thousands of pounds, yet the police have limited powers. Generally, they use section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 to move people on, but that legislation does not apply to vehicles, animals, or the travellers' other belongings. As the assistant chief constable of Thames Valley wrote in a recent letter to me :
"It follows therefore that if we were to exercise a power of arrest in circumstances which warranted it, then the families of the persons arrested would still be able to remain with their property on the land."
It was put to me that there should be a new offence of aggravated trespass on land to meet that problem. As matters stand, a district council can obtain an eviction order from a local court when dealing with illegal encampments on common land, but for the police to move illegal encampments from private property requires a much more drawn-out procedure. I know that the police would welcome a simplified court order system.
I wonder whether showmen's vehicles, and the right or otherwise to park them at the side of the road, really belong in the 1968 Act as it is presently drawn.
I have outlined some of the changes to present legislation that, in my opinion, could bring some order to a situation that is rapidly getting out of control. I hope that it is clear from my remarks that the law should strike a new balance between the obvious rights of ordinary people living in towns and villages to be spared the nuisance, aggravation, and hooliganism associated with illegal encampments and the fact that many thousands of people prefer a nomadic way of life--and that simply to try to move them on to somebody else's patch is no solution. Quite simply, the Act must be amended.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, Sir Anthony Durant, Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Mark Wolfson, Mr. Tim Smith and Mr. John Watts.
Caravan Sites (Amendment)
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson accordingly presented a Bill to amend Part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 ; to
Column 135
make further provision in respect of encampments of travelling people ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February and to be printed. [Bill 64.]Column 136
Local Government Finance
Mr. Speaker : In view of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm. I hope, however, that those who are called before and after those times will bear the limit in mind, so that all who wish to speak may be called. 3.40 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine) : I beg to move,
That the Revenue Support Grant Report (England) 1992-93 (House of Commons Paper No. 188), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
It may be convenient also to consider the following motions : That the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) (No. 2) Report (England) (House of Commons Paper No. 190), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
That the Population Report (England) (No. 3) (House of Commons Paper No. 189), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (No. 3) (House of Commons Paper No. 191), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
Many of us have taken part in these annual debates before, but they should not be seen as any sort of ritual. The House should explore thoroughly and carefully the allocation of £33 billion of taxpayers' funds : that is the element of Government support for some £42 billion of local authority expenditure.
It is appropriate on occasions such as this to remind the House of the difference between the Labour party's approach to taxation and expenditure levels, and that of the Government. We know from long and bitter experience that high levels of taxation are the hallmark of the Labour party in national government and that rising taxation levels are characteristic of that party in local government. This year, the average community charge is some £60 higher in Labour-controlled metropolitan boroughs than in those controlled by the Conservative party. In London, the gap is even wider. It is exactly the same story in the shire counties : average charges are £80 higher in Labour districts than in Conservative districts. In independent and Social and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities, they are £37 higher. This is a national pattern, which both the House and a wider audience will no doubt wish to bear carefully in mind.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : Last year, the Isle of Wight received a higher settlement than any other shire county in England. The authority has nearly £3 million on its balances, but the Liberal Democrats are considering cutting £1.5 million from the education budget--although, when they fought the last county election, they ran down the county balances to £250,000 and ignored the advice of the district auditor. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could spare the time to join me in a rally and march in Newport, Isle of Wight, this weekend, when we shall go to county hall to protest to the Liberal Democrats about this exhibition of sheer political spite.
Mr. Heseltine : That is a most generous invitation, I must say. I feel torn between two options. Perhaps I can combine making a speech in Eastbourne on Saturday to the Young Conservatives, the largest political youth
Column 137
organisation in the country--we shall also have to deal with the problems caused by Liberal Democrats in the House, if only temporarily--with a dash across country to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his constituency, and a detour to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field).On mature reflection, that will be stretching the ingenuity of the transport infrastructure in this country further than is credible, despite the remarkable improvements in that infrastructure for which the Government, alone, are responsible. I must leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight to use his customary eloquence to put the case, which is obviously a formidable one. I look forward to reading the coverage in the national and local press, which I am sure is well deserved.
Where was I?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Why does not the right hon. Gentleman stand against the grey man?
Mr. Heseltine : On the rare occasions that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) stands to say anything, he seeks to cause the maximum possible trouble for his party, which it claims has abandoned all the political views that the hon. Gentleman, at least, has the integrity still to advocate.
Mr. Skinner : Unlike the Secretary of State, I have never stood against the leader of my party. I was not one of those who decided to act as a stalking horse so that the Ken Barlow replica could get the job, turning out the previous Prime Minister like a dog in the night. The net result is that the right hon. Gentleman has finished up with the poll tax brief, which he did not want. He begged for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's job and was kicked into touch.
Mr. Heseltine : I am sorry to have bothered the hon. Gentleman. He should reconsider his position. By standing against the leader of the Labour party, he would cause exciting consequences for this country. If he were the leader of the Labour party, at least we would know that he was saying the things that most of his supporters still believe. We would know where we are and we would find it easier to keep the Labour party in opposition than we will otherwise. I do not want to trespass on your generosity, Mr. Speaker, by straying from the important revenue support grant debate.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : Before my right hon. Friend tours the entire country from the Isle of Wight to Basildon, may I bring him back to the point that he was making? Whether we are dealing with metropolitan authorities or shire districts, Labour authorities set community charges that are substantially higher than in Conservative-controlled areas, and that is as true in the north as it is in London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the low community charges set by Wandsworth and Westminster are proof of the generous revenue support grant settlements for all inner London boroughs, which are partly subsidised by the settlement for the shire districts represented by the Conservative party?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend is right. As I have made clear, we have provided an additional 7.2 per cent. cash to support local authority expenditure in the coming year
Column 138
when inflation is just over 4 per cent. That is a considerable real-terms improvement in the support for local authority services. It is characteristic that, despite the additional support from the Government, the overall level of charges in all classes of authority will be significantly higher in Labour-controlled authorities than in Conservative-controlled authorities. Interestingly, more money being spent is not the same as people getting a better standard of service.Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East) : The right hon. Gentleman talked about a 4 per cent. uplift for all authorities next year. Would he care to tell us about Wolverhampton's predicament? We will have to take £15 million from our budget, cut hundreds of jobs and reduce services that have been built up patiently over many years. We have an uplift of 3.5 per cent. when inflation is 4 per cent. How can my authority balance its books and do what it should for the people of our town, when the Government are not granting it sufficient resources to maintain the level of services? How can you say that the people of Wolverhampton-- [Interruption.] I shall finish, Mr. Speaker, because this is important for the people of Wolverhampton. They want to know why the Government are not supporting them. We have the--
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his chance later in the debate.
Mr. Turner : The people of Wolverhampton will suffer as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's policies.
Mr. Turner : I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Thank you so much.
Mr. Heseltine : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the West Midlands police authority will receive an increase of about 15 per cent. in next year's allocation--that is an important concentration of support where people care most about the quality of service that they receive.
I was going to make the point that high community charges and high expenditure levels do not necessarily mean that the quality of service is high. That is clear from the analysis. Lambeth has one of the highest community charges in the country, but its cumulative rent arrears are now more than £17 million. That means that £17 million which should have been spent on maintaining the local authority housing stock is not being spent, because the local authority has not collected it. It is another example of inefficient management denying local authority tenants the service to which they are entitled. Haringey's rent arrears are the equivalent of almost 20 per cent. of its rent roll--
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
All analyses show the same disregard for the quality of service, although the levels of expenditure are often very high. I have been less than impressed by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) during the past few days. He has been trying to suggest that one can make easy comparisons between one authority and another. He indulged in a very selective process and produced a
Column 139
number of statistics to try to show that some Labour authorities spend more than some Conservative-controlled authorities on some services.That reflects only the fact that Labour controls some authorities where there are significant levels of need and the Government, through the standard spending assessment system, provide encouragement to meet that need. Therefore, it is not surprising that some Labour authorities spend more in areas of need.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heseltine : That is precisely what the Government intended should happen.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : What about meeting needs in North Derbyshire or South Derbyshire?
Mrs. Hicks : Is it not difficult for my right hon. Friend to come to the aid of Wolverhampton in the full knowledge that its authority has more than £5 million of rent arrears, numerous empty council houses and 10,000 surplus school places? Although we hear what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) says, is it not a difficult situation for my right hon. Friend to comprehend?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend's point seems to be a most telling case, with which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) should deal. It is very important, but it is perhaps not a debate which should be conducted over my head during my introductory speech.
I was intrigued to discover that the hon. Member for Dagenham alleges that the collection cost of 1 tonne of rubbish is £39.38 in Wandsworth and £16.62 in Haringey, but I understand from inquiries in Wandsworth that that figure is for collection and disposal--£30 per tonne for disposal alone under an old expensive contract inherited from the borough. The House will by now have guessed from where the authority inherited that contract-- it was the old Labour-controlled Greater London council.
The most interesting point in the analysis by the hon. Member for Dagenham, in which he sought to produce figures to prove that Labour was more effective than others on an independent analysis, is why he does not therefore bring pressure to bear on Labour-controlled authorities, especially in London, which do not provide up-to-date returns on which their cost analysis can be compared. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Dagenham will not do anything to encourage Labour authorities to keep their returns up to date, so that their analysis of spending can be known to their electors and to a wider public. I can understand why. Those authorities are the ones which do not collect rents, which did not collect the rates and which do not collect the community charge.
Mr. Harry Barnes : Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Heseltine : I must confess that I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a non-payer of his community charge. I can see no case for a Secretary of State giving way to him when he advises his constituents that they should not maintain the law of this country.
Column 140
Mr. Barnes : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statements made by the Secretary of State are absolutely incorrect. [ Hon. Members :-- "Apologise."] He should give me a chance to talk about North East Derbyshire. It is a Labour-controlled authority--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Is this a point of order for me ? If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he may get the chance to talk about North East Derbyshire later in the debate.
Mr. Heseltine : If the hon. Gentleman is now advising people to pay their community charge, I apologise unreservedly.
Mr. Harry Barnes : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : The Secretary of State has now given way to the hon. Gentleman. I would far rather that he put his question to the Secretary of State than to me.
Mr. Barnes : I never advised people not to pay their community charge. I might not have paid my own for a certain period, and there are strong arguments and analyses in connection with that, which I have explained in the House on numerous occasions. That chap over there knows nothing about them.
Mr. Heseltine : Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman's argument is that if he did not pay his own community charge--I believe that he said he would not do that--
Mr. Heseltine : Ah. Having said that he would not pay and having given the worst possible signals, under pressure he has now given way and changed his mind. It sounds to me like the worst possible deal.
Mr. Barnes : Will the Secretary of State explain why the standard spending assessment for North East Derbyshire places it 365th out of 366 authorities in England ? It receives only £81 per head for poll tax payers in the area by way of grant, whereas other authorities receive two or three times that amount. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a discussion later about the principles of non-payment and why hon. Members may not have paid because of the damage done to the electoral register, that is another matter.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer about the position of North East Derbyshire ? It is not a well-heeled authority, yet it is at the bottom of the league in terms of the money that it is allowed to spend and the amount of grant that the Government provide.
Mr. Heseltine : I was trying to hear whether the hon. Gentleman paid his community charge because he was taken to court or whether it was because he was convinced that the case that he first advocated was wrong. He has not made that position clear to the House. The House would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman's sudden conversion to keeping within the law came because he changed his mind or because he was taken to court.
Mr. Barnes : The change occurred because there was a vast change in the Government's position. They decided to get rid of the poll tax, although they have not lived up to that promise properly and correctly. A change took place. The action taken by various people, including myself, advanced the position of the Secretary of State and led to the demise of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs.
Column 141
Thatcher) as Prime Minister. She was destroyed by the flagship of the poll tax. No one else on the Conservative Benches has produced arguments to explain why they wish to get rid of the poll tax and introduce a council tax in its place.Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman is being more than frank with the House. In effect, he is arguing that it is perfectly legitimate to defy the law as long as one gains by doing so. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his is exactly the sort of case that led to authorities' inability to collect the community charge on the scale that was appropriate. It was a deliberate decision and strategy of some Labour Members that they would pursue that policy, and it does not lie in their mouths now to blame the Government for the effects of that deliberate strategy.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Derbyshire, more than 90 per cent. of the money raised is spent by Derbyshire county council, which subsidises school meals at 1981 prices while sacking teachers, ending swimming lessons and closing libraries, which sends its leader and his cronies on an expensive trip to China while we have fewer police officers than 10 years ago, and which plays around with the pension fund? In those circumstances, is my right hon. Friend surprised that the leader of the council has just announced that he is to resign and that the deputy leader is facing charges? Does my right hon. Friend think that things will improve in future? With "friends" like the hon. Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will they not remain exactly the same?
Mr. Heseltine : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The debate has taken on a most intriguing dimension. Any minute now, the hon. Member for Dagenham will be on his feet asking for higher levels of public expenditure by local authorities. He will be citing--I have no doubt that he will paint a dramatic picture of harrowing cuts--the local authorities' case for an extra £2 billion, over and above the 7.2 per cent. increases that the Government believe to be appropriate. The House will want to know exactly where the Labour party stands on the issue of increased public expenditure. It does not require a great deal of calculation to work out that, if the hon. Member for Dagenham argues the local authorities' case for an additional £2 billion of public expenditure--which is what the authorities want--that will have to be paid for somehow. The money will not come from extra support from the Government, so it can come only from either 1p extra on income tax or £60 on every poll tax bill. Before the debate ends, we shall want to know which argument the hon. Gentleman advances : does he support the levels of expenditure that the Government believe to be justified or would he put another 1p on income tax or £60 on poll tax to support the local authorities in their request for additional expenditure?
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : Surely, as reports from the Audit Commission have repeatedly proven, the answer to everything is greater efficiency. That is why Wandsworth is able to return for a second year no community charge while receiving the lowest level of
Column 142
support of all the inner-London boroughs-- hundreds of pounds less than the London borough of Lambeth next door.Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend raises a central issue. The Labour party wants to get rid of the Audit Commission because, for the first time, the commission has put a spotlight on inefficiency in service delivery and on cost per unit of output in a way that is in the end likely to improve efficiency. The moment the Labour party sees genuine discipline imposed on local authorities, it wants to get rid of the agency that is achieving that discipline.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I despair of the Secretary of State ever treating local government matters in the House seriously. He reduces everything to drag-out dirty politics, as though he was addressing the Conservative conference.
The right hon. Gentleman is looking around for reasons why local authorities will be asking for extra money. I put it to him that, in the case of the London borough of Newham, it will be because we have to find £6 million this year out of revenue as a result of decisions taken by the valuation court on old rate rebates. That had nothing to do with the London borough of Newham. We are not the only borough in London--or, indeed, elsewhere--facing that prospect. What help can the Secretary of State offer us? Or does he intend to carry on kicking the thing around like a cheap party political football?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he went to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities yesterday and that they had a discussion about the matter. It would be quite wrong for me to anticipate what my hon. Friend might recommend by way of response. Frankly, when the hon. Gentleman uses that sort of debasing language--I have to use those words--to misrepresent the courteous reception that he received yesterday at the Department of the Environment, he does not encourage my hon. Friend the Minister of State to continue to see people so courteously.
The hon. Member for Dagenham has also been misleading the public about the target community charge for next year. All hon. Members know that the figure that we produced in the settlement provides for standard spending of just over £257. That is not a prediction ; it is a target. Efficient authorities will be able to set charges at or near that level, and a significant number of authorities will do precisely that. However, inefficient local authorities will charge more. It is interesting to note that, once again, 18 of the 20 highest community charges this year have been set by Labour local authorities.
The latest evidence is that the gloomy predictions about collection rates that were made by the hon. Member for Dagenham and his colleagues are not being realised. Returns for the third quarter of 1991-92 show that 29 per cent. of the annual budgeted income was collected in that quarter, making a total of 68 per cent. of the budgeted yield for the year. The figure for that quarter is marginally better than for the same quarter in the previous year. There is no reason why, in the year as a whole, local authorities should not improve their overall level of collection. Indeed, the latest figures for 1990-91 show that authorities have now collected 97 per cent. of the budgeted income for that year. As always, however, the average disguises the failure of the worst authorities--and the
Column 143
worst authorities are Labour authorities. As far as we can see on the latest information, in about nine cases a quarter or more of last year's budgeted income still remains to be collected. I hope that that position will have improved, but that is the latest information available to me.The essence of the point that I wish to stress to the House is that that problem is not unique to the community charge. The self-same authorities generally had the worst record for rent collection also. They would do no better under "fair rates" proposals of the hon. Member for Dagenham , if they were ever to be introduced. Indeed, they are the same authorities that cannot collect their rents either. One keeps coming back to the same authorities--Lambeth, Haringey, Hackney and Liverpool. Time and again, the same authorities do not collect their bills--whatever those bill happen to be.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : May I take my right hon. Friend briefly back to the figure of £257 that he quoted? I believe that, if it put its mind to it, my authority in Nottingham could achieve that figure--but with one exception. Will my right hon. Friend address the problem that affected all my constituents last year when an extra £44.75 was imposed on them to pay for the slow payers and non- payers who were encouraged in their actions by the Labour Members, and especially by Labour Members such as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North- East (Mr. Barnes)? I make that point because the neighbouring authority to the city of Nottingham, Conservative-controlled Gedling, imposed only an extra £3.50. That shows clearly that the surcharge had nothing to do with Government legislation but was due entirely to the difference between Conservative and Labour-run authorities. What protection can we give our constituents?
Mr. Heseltine : The simplest solution, as I am sure my hon. Friend will persistently advocate, is to vote those Labour authorities out of office. That is incomparably the best way in which to deal with the issue.
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) rose
Mr. Heseltine : Please forgive me, but I shall not give way because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
I wish to say a few words about non-payment. The House has heard me say before, and I repeat it now, that there will be no amnesty for non-payers. We are taking further steps to ensure that authorities have the necessary powers for the proper enforcement of the community charge. On 23 January, I announced that we would be extending from two to six years the period during which enforcement proceedings may be commenced. I announced last week that we are moving swiftly to put beyond doubt the admissibility of computer evidence in proceedings for community charge recovery in magistrates courts. We will table amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill, now in another place, to ensure that admissibility.
Last week, the hon. Member for Dagenham put it to me that we should put a short Bill through the House in rapid time to deal with the issue. I considered that offer with fairness and in deference to his position of responsibility as a leading member of the Labour party. When his letter arrived, I spent a great deal of the day exploring all the problems of putting through a Bill of the sort that he had
| Next Section
| Home Page |