House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Feb 1992

Column 80

The Government have no wish to curtail reasonable debate in Committees, but there is a clear difference between reasonable debate and filibustering. I have no doubt whatever that the Opposition by their tactics in Committee, have made a deliberate attempt to frustrate proper consideration of the Bill.

The Bill received thorough consideration in the other place--more than 40 hours in total, including almost 20 hours in Committee. The detailed record of the Committee stage so far in this House provides the clearest possible evidence of a blatant attempt by the Labour party to drag out Committee proceedings. [Interruption.] The House will want to hear the facts. First, the Bill is a relatively short one of only 30 clauses. So far, the Committee has sat for 38 hours in nine sittings, and 30 hours have been spent on just four clauses. It is important to set the Opposition tactics in the context of the originally agreed pattern for Committee proceedings. Originally, six days were agreed for consideration in Committee, and that included five full days. The Government accepted that members of the Committee would want to have the opportunity to attend the debate on the revenue support grant settlement. For this reason, because that debate was postponed, two afternoon sessions were lost, but we readily agreed to add a seventh day to the Committee proceedings to make up for that lost time.

It is self-evident that a single day was adequate for the four clauses on competition. On any reasonable basis of parliamentary scrutiny, that was surely so--and any reasonable Opposition would have accepted that. But clauses 8 and 9 have taken eighteen and a half hours. It is clear that the Opposition embarked on a filibuster in full knowledge of the time allowed for the Committee stage. The first 7 clauses deal with performance standards of local authorities. The Committee spent more than four hours on clause 1 and more than seven hours on clause 2, using up four morning sittings. Clauses 8 to 11 deal with the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to local authority professional services. The Committee finally reached clause 8 just after 7 pm during the fifth sitting on the afternoon of 6 February. The Committee then spent the next two full days on clauses 8 and 9. That included Tuesday 11 February, when the Committee continued until nearly 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning. In total, clause 8 took ten and a half hours. Even this very limited progress during the marathon sitting on clause 8 was possible only because my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities moved the closure on two groups of amendments. One group of amendments on clause 8 took over seven hours. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) who is not present in the Chamber, led for the Opposition in the Committee. He opened with a one- hour speech, and had to be brought to order twice.

The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) spoke for 50 minutes. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke for a second time and had to brought to order for repetition. The closure was clearly accepted by the Committee Chairman on the basis of lengthy consideration of one group of amendments.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : Why does not the Minister tell the whole story about that debate? At the end of it, the Under-Secretary congratulated me on the quality of my submission and my knowledge of the subject under discussion.

Column 81

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State is well known for his generosity.

The lengthy debate did not stop with that group of amendments. Still on clause 8, the hon. Member for Brightside spoke for a further 55 minutes, and the hon. Member for Makerfield spoke for a further 1 hour 40 minutes and had to be brought to order.

The performance of Opposition Members was a parody of that well-loved radio programme, "Just a Minute". They used every form of deviation and repetition and plenty of hesitation to waste time. They many times broke the rule about continued use of the same word. As the House knows, I believe in the sensible management of the legislative programme in the interests of the whole House. Under the timetable motion, there will still be a full day available to consider part II of the Bill. That will provide the same number of hours in Committee on those clauses as was spent on them in another place--that is, eight hours. The timetable motion does not prohibit further debate, but enables the original commitment to be completed. The House will not be at all surprised to know that we are not prepared to prolong consideration of the Bill indefinitely to accommodate the Opposition's tactics. It is significant that the Committee accelerated its consideration of the Bill as soon as it was known that the timetable motion was being tabled. That shows what was going on. The Opposition's filibuster makes the motion inevitable, and I cannot believe that it comes as any surprise to any Opposition Member. I commend it to the House.

7.17 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : The Leader of the House is usually a courteous man, but he forgot to open his speech with a welcome. He should have said, "Welcome to the weekly guillotine debate," as such debates are a weekly occurrence on timetables enforced by the Government. He spoke about repetition and wasting the House's time. He might have acknowledged that the most repetitive business nowadays in the House is discussion of timetable motions imposed by himself. This is the 36th such timetable motion, but repetition does not make them any more valid. We have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman's speeches of justification get shorter and shorter, to the point where they are almost an apology for what the Government are doing. I assume that before long he will be asking us to take guillotine motions on the nod as though they were matters of no controversy. That would be absolutely wrong, and it could not be more wrong in respect of local government legislation.

In the 13 wasted years of legislation from this Government, the area in which they have made the most horrendous errors in the largest number of Bills has been local government. In almost 60 Acts of Parliament during that time, an average of about five a year, the Government have made the most appalling errors, often steamrollering legislation through the House and coming to regret it bitterly afterwards. Perhaps the most outstanding example of all was the poll tax, but it was only one of many such pieces of legislation. The Government not only guillotined the poll tax in--they guillotined it out as well, thus creating parliamentary political history. Most parties can be forgiven at some stage in their period of office for wanting

Column 82

to guillotine their manifesto commitments in, but this Government made history by guillotining their manifesto commitment out. Here we are again, with yet another guillotine debate. As the Leader of the House knows perfectly well, this is not so much about the Government wanting to get their business through, for which the right hon. Gentleman erroneously claimed widespread support, as about the Government's hidden timetable for an election on 9 April. That is what these successive timetable motions are all about. We read about Prime Ministerial jets and contracts ending on 10 April, and we know that the Government are in trouble with their timetable both here and in another place. This motion is all about a general election. It would do the right hon. Gentleman far more credit if he was candid with the House and the country and admitted as much.

Mr. MacGregor : Clearly, I do not know when the general election will be, but I know that we have a substantial programme of legislation in a shortened Parliament. That is the point that I have to take into account.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the number of timetable motions that I have introduced. As he well knows, I am in favour of timetable motions for all legislation.

Dr. Cunningham : The right hon. Gentleman is not alone in that view, but that view has been put to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House on the basis of agreed procedures agreed within the Standing Orders of the House--not on the basis of the arbitrary and unilateral imposition of the timetables with which the right hon. Gentleman is obliged to proceed.

I suppose that we should exonerate the right hon. Gentleman to some extent as apparently he is an innocent. He knows that something important is happening on 9 April, but it seems that no one has told him what it is. All that he has been told is that he must get the business out of the House in time to accommodate what is to happen on 9 April. If the right hon. Gentleman does not realise that the Opposition and the public can see through that, he is deluding himself.

The right hon. Gentleman should be called not the Lord President but, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan, the Lord High Executioner as he chops off one debate after another by means of these timetable motions.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the time taken discussing clause 8 in part I. We do not apologise for giving detailed scrutiny to clause 8, which is about competition and goes to the heart of our opposition to what is being proposed.

Talking of wasting time, I remind the Leader of the House that, thanks to the Government continually changing their mind on the timetabling of business in the Chamber, three potential half-days of Committee sittings were lost simply because of changes to the business in this place, which were entirely the fault of the Government's mismanagement and chopping and changing of business.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo) : Two, actually

Dr. Cunningham : The hon. Gentleman is right. The third half-day was lost because the Chairman of the Committee unfortunately got stuck in a traffic jam. We do

Column 83

not hold the Chairman responsible for that, but if the Government had done something over the years about the traffic in London, that half-day might not have been lost. Whichever way we look at the problem, it comes down to the fault of Ministers in the end. We make no apologies for taking time to scrutinise this legislation, especially in view of the Government's awful record of ineffectual--nay, highly damaging- -local government, legislation over the past 13 years. As for the right hon. Gentleman's claim that one more day will be adequate to consider part II, I believe that that includes 18 clauses and four schedules. The House is being asked to agree to allocating one day to that. People outside this place who take an interest in proper scrutiny of legislation and the proper holding to account of the Executive--and even, I dare say, some fair-minded Tories--would say that it was asking for trouble to shove legislation through the House in that way without enough time for proper consideration. We do not accept that one further day is anything like reasonable to deal with part II.

While we object to the way in which business is being pushed through here, outside this House hundreds of thousands of people who have to work in local government and millions of people who depend in one way or another on local government services are very angry about what the Government have done through all this legislation. They have disabled many effective and efficient local authorities the length and breadth of the country, Conservatives as well as Labour. They have damaged the efficient provision of high-quality services by their dogmatic approach to compulsory competitive tendering, and they have prevented the millions of people who rely on local government services from receiving quality and regularity in the services that they require. We shall therefore make sure, so far as it is within our power to do so, that this Bill is given proper consideration. The Leader of the House talked about the amount of time taken to consider the Bill in another place. That is a matter for their Lordships, but I have never heard any previous Leader of the House recommend that what had happened to legislation in another place should be the determining factor in what happens here. Government always have the right to introduce Bills in another place, but that is no guarantee of an easy passage in the House of Commons--nor should anyone assume that it ever would be.

The Government have made serious errors yet again in these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who has been speaking for us on these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) have made that fact clear time and again. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham does not serve on the Committee, but he was involved on Second Reading and elsewhere-- [Interruption.]

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities mutters from a sedentary position about filibustering. The penultimate time we discussed one of these timetable motions, it was his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who made the longest speech, as we discovered by checking. The Minister should therefore not be too anxious to mention the length of speeches-- [Interruption.] --and he should

Column 84

certainly not persist in haranguing me from a sedentary position. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him. I am merely pointing out that there is plenty of evidence that, when necessary, Ministers are willing to take up more than enough of the time of the House to make their somewhat inadvertent and irrelevant points. As the Leader of the House referred to what is and is not relevant, he should pay a little more attention to the stream of spurious points of order made by his hon. Friends if he is concerned about expediting the business of the House.

Since the Leader of the House made his brief speech without providing any justification for this draconian timetable, and since he sought in no way to convince the House that 18 clauses and four schedules can be adequately scrutinised in one more day of Committee debate, I assume that he thinks, as has happened throughout this Parliament, that the Government can come along with their inbuilt majority and their rubber stamp and authenticate any decision that the Government take, however arbitrary, however unfair and however ill-advised it may be in terms of the proper scrutiny of legislation.

The day is quickly coming when the electors of our country will hold the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends to account not only for all their local government legislation, the poll tax included, but for their mismanagement of the affairs of this country in general. When people have the chance to vote, this will be yet another nail in the Government's coffin.

7.30 pm

Mr. Douglas French (Gloucester) : I deeply regret the need for a guillotine on this Bill--indeed, I deeply regret the need for a guillotine on any Bill. It is not the way to achieve high-quality legislation that has been well considered and that has had all the imperfections ironed out of it. I regret in particular the imposition of a guillotine part way through a Bill. In this case, it means that a disproportionate amount of time has been spent on considering the first part of the Bill and that the later stages, in particular part II, which is of great importance, will not now get the attention that they ought to have had and that they clearly merit.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, however, that a guillotine is necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, if we had proceeded at the pace at which we were proceeding, and if, in particular, there had been any additional enormously long sittings devoted to one clause, we should have been here until, probably, midsummer before we completed our deliberations. The Committee proceedings on clause 8 represent a classic example of the abuse--if I can put it that way--of the procedures of this House. I consider that it would be a much more efficient and economical use of the resources of the House if the amount of time to be allocated to a particular Bill were to be decided in advance. The time could then be allocated sensibly. If that is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House means by having a timetable for each Bill, I very much support his proposal.

I believe, too, that the method of debate employed in some Committees is not very well suited to ensuring that detailed revisions of legislation are made so that one ends up with good and well-considered legislation. The

Column 85

confrontational approach that is adopted in Committee does not produce the high-quality legislation that the House ought to be capable of producing. In addition to the context in which we are holding the debate, very much broader issues are at stake as to how Committee debates are conducted. When these matters come, as they do from time to time, before the Select Committee on Procedure, I hope that a clear look will be taken at the way that Committee debates are conducted.

It seems to be abundantly obvious from the proceedings in Committee that the Labour party is against the Bill and that it wants to prevent it from making progress. It clearly tried to ensure that the maximum amount of time was devoted to considering part I in order to prevent us from

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had the same experience in his constituency as I have had in mine, but the image has been created in my constituency that the Labour party wants the Bill, yet down here the Labour party is doing everything possible to delay it. Has my hon. Friend had that experience?

Mr. French : My hon. Friend takes the exact words out of my mouth. I am coming to precisely that point and, if I am allowed to do so, I intend to enlarge upon it when I reach it.

First, however, let me say that part II, which establishes the local government commission, ought, in my judgment, to be given very careful consideration. However, it is precisely that part of the Bill that has not been given proper consideration, due to the overlong deliberations on part I.

I recall that, during the Second Reading debate on 20 January, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) opposed the Bill. He said that he was against part I and described part II as "an even greater disappointment". However, it needs to be placed firmly on record that Labour party councillors throughout the country support the Bill, and particularly part II. Many of them are extremely keen to see the establishment of a Local Government Commission. They are also extremely keen to see the establishment of the unitary authorities that will result from the commission's deliberations.

The Labour party will have to make up its mind. Labour party councillors throughout the country want the Local Government Commission, as well as unitary status, where appropriate. Do those councillors therefore support the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen here, and the members of the Committee, who have been instrumental in blocking the Bill?

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes regarding parts I and II. It has always been clear that the controversial part of the Bill relates to competitive tendering when it is compulsory competitive tendering. The lukewarm part of the Bill concerns the Local Government Commission. Would it not have been better, therefore, to introduce two Bills? The first would have provided for the creation of the Local Government Commission and would have gone through virtually on the nod. The second could have been debated for much longer in Committee, due to the controversial issues that it contained. This is only a bare

Column 86

bones of a Bill. It contains no affirmative procedure. That is why it has taken some time to explore the issues involved.

Mr. French : That is an ingenious solution which, were it to be applied, would get the Labour party off the hook, but that is not what happened. On account of the delays imposed upon the Committee in respect of part I, part II will not receive the consideration that it deserves. To me, that implies that the Labour party is not interested in part II being properly considered. It is not interested in obtaining a good part II. I have already referred to the fact that the hon. Member for Dagenham described part II as "an even greater disappointment" than part I. That does not suggest to me that he is pleased with part II ; it implies that he has criticisms to make of it.

Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) indicated assent.

Mr. French : One of the difficulties is that, because we are being denied the opportunity to debate part II, Members of Parliament in all parts of the House will be unable to make those criticisms of part II that they might have felt to be appropriate.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : The hon. Gentleman makes it appear that the Labour party has denied the Committee time to discuss the next stage of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman feels that we ought to have more time to discuss part II, he ought to come over here and vote with us against the guillotine motion. If he wants more time for the Bill, he ought to try to persuade his right hon. Friend that the Committee needs more time to discuss part II.

Mr. French : The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been following my argument. Of course we want this part of the Bill to be debated, but so far the debate has done nothing but obstruct its consideration. We cannot continue in the same vein. There comes a point at which, if the Bill is to become law, as it clearly should, we have to make progress. That is why we are debating the guillotine motion. We should not be debating it now if so much time in Committee had not been consumed particularly on clause 8. Important though clause 8 is, it has thrown the Committee's deliberations and what ought to have been the normal timetable for the Committee out of all reasonable proportion. That is why we are in this position.

Labour councillors have expressed sympathy and support for part II of the Bill. Do they support Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in blocking the Bill, which would suggest that they are insincere in their declared support for the Local Government Commission and the prospect of unitary status, or do they genuinely believe in unitary status, as the Bill proposes? If so, will they disown the conduct of the parliamentary Labour party? Which is the genuine and true voice of the Labour party? It is speaking with two voices on this part of the Bill--

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : Only two?

Mr. French : There may be more, but I am perfectly content with those two, because they completely contradict each other. It is incumbent on the Labour party to explain its attitude to the Local Government Commission and the prospect of unitary status. I hope that that question will be put to Labour councillors. Do they support the attitude

Column 87

adopted by their own party in Parliament to part II of the Bill? If not, will they distance themselves from the conduct of Labour Members?

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : I am a member of the Committee considering the Bill, but as far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not made any comment on part I. He has no opinion on whether his constituents' pensions are taken away, or on compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. French : I have views to express about part II. The speeches of Labour Members, including those of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), have been so lengthy that, in the interests of progress, Conservative Members have not made long speeches. That underlines the defect in the approach to Committee work.

I believe that part II is at the heart of the Bill. I wish to debate the terms of reference of the Local Government Commission and its composition, which interests Labour Members, but, as matters are proceeding, I shall not have a chance to do so.

The hon. Member for Carlisle will know that I have tabled amendments on the terms of reference for the Local Government Commission as he has signed them. I am grateful for his support and for that of my hon. Friends, but it appears that we shall not have an opportunity to debate them.

Mr. Martlew : I hope that the hon. Gentleman is more vocal tomorrow than he has been at previous sittings ; otherwise, the debate on the amendment that we move together will be very brief.

Mr. French : I have much to say about the amendment, but it would be out of order for me to put tonight the arguments that I intend to put tomorrow. I want the Local Government Commission to consider the position of historic cities, in which the hon. Member for Carlisle has an interest.

Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge) : The hon. Gentleman said that he has a lot to say on part II but criticised my hon. Friends for having a lot to say on part I. Why does he think that he has a right to say a lot on part II but that my hon. Friends should be excluded from saying a lot on part I?

Mr. French : It is a matter of relativity. What I describe as "a lot to say" is tiny compared with the interpretation of Labour Members. My interpretation would be a concise and relevant speech of about 10 minutes and no more. I think that I can put my arguments on historic cities in no more than 10 minutes. If I have an opportunity tomorrow, I shall do so.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) has not had the same opportunity as we have to listen to all these interesting speeches. He plainly does not understand that the difference between a long speech and a speech full of content is quite stark. If he takes the opportunity to read the long speeches, he will not find any content.

Mr. French : I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Committee Chairmen are long-suffering and do their best in a difficult job, but I believe that they should be more robust in ruling material out of order.

Column 88

Mr. Martlew : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise the Chairmen of a Committee in that way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) should not do so. I hope that he will withdraw those comments.

Mr. French : I withdraw that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If members of Committees ensured that their comments were relevant, it would solve much of the problem, because their speeches would not be unduly long, and we could debate more of the Bill.

Mr. Clelland : I thought that I heard the Leader of the House criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), yet, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Minister congratulated him on the content of his speech. Mr. French : That is because the Minister is courteous. It would be natural for him to express congratulations, but that does not mean that every part of the speech that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) made was strictly relevant to the clause that he was addressing.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes : Labour Members may have missed the point that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was making in congratulating the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I think that my hon. Friend was congratulating the hon. Gentleman on making a boring speech lasting only 50 minutes, rather than his usual boring speech of one hour and 40 minutes.

Mr. French : I am inclined to agree with the sentiments that my hon. Friend expresses.

Mr. Portillo : My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) had spoken with his customary force and conviction. If the hon. Member for Makerfield was pleased with that comment, he must lack a sense of irony.

Mr. French : The Minister makes the point very well indeed. I wish to conclude my remarks, because I should not wish to be open to the same criticism as I am making of Labour Members. I have made my point about the conduct of Committees and about the Labour party's deliberate attempts to prevent us from reaching part II of the Bill, which is so important.

7.48 pm

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : The motion is against the best interests of local government. If we are to have meaningful local government legislation, Bills such as this should be allowed to proceed with the fullest possible discussion of their clauses. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) may think that part I is not important, but Conservative and Labour councillors are concerned about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering under clause 8. In fact, we were told that PA Consultants advised the Government that not all the proposals for the further extension of compulsory competitive tendering were in the best interests of the people who depend on the services. We

Column 89

dwelt on housing at some length, and questions were raised as to how consultation and compulsory competitive tendering would apply to it.

Primary legislation gives tenants' associations and co-operatives the right to consultation before any changes are made in the management or administration of their housing estates. When we asked for clarification and for the issues to be explained and qualified, we were told that the Minister for Housing and Planning would issue a consultation document in due course. That document should have been published in January, but it has not yet appeared. Therefore, the Committee had to discuss an issue without the evidence necessary for Members to make a decision on the very important issue of changing the management of local authority housing and how that will affect the tenants who depend on such housing for their welfare and quality of life.

Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Gloucester had no comment to make on the important issue of local authority housing departments. I and many of my colleagues considered it to be a significant matter which should have been discussed in detail in Committee, but we were told that our questions could not be answered because the necessary information was not available. How can Conservative hon. Members expect the Opposition to accept such a situation when discussing clause 8?

If the Leader of the House had any respect for local government, he would join me and my colleagues in saying that the information required for us to make a judgment on clause 8 should have been put before the Committee. I want to register our deepest concern about the fact that the Government are steamrolling through legislation that is against the best interest of the people who depend on local government services.

I again put to the Leader of the House and to Ministers this question : will the tenants' associations and co-operatives have a say in the way in which compulsory competitive tendering will apply to the management of local authority housing services as laid down in primary legislation? Will they be given the opportunity to say whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements? We have been told that, before the tenants were subject to a change of housing management, a vote should be taken among the tenants and the people who depend on local authority housing services and that, if a majority were against the change, it should not be implemented. Will that apply in the case of compulsory competitive tendering? If the majority of tenants do not want the current arrangements for housing management changed--those arrangements include letting and the reporting and repairs service--will their views be taken into consideration and accepted as laid down under current legislation? The Leader of the House, who moved the guillotine motion, should be able to answer the simple questions being put by councillors--Labour and Tory--about how the extension of compulsory competitive tendering will apply to managerial services. The hon. Member for Gloucester is fully aware that similar questions were asked about police services but they were not answered. The same was true of questions on architectural services and on the provision and future of library services, so we had to keep pressing Minsters on those important matters under clause 8.

I remind members of the Committee that, when we were requesting information, some Conservative hon. Members

Column 90

intervened on me and my colleagues because of the importance of the points raised. We had no objection to the interventions. There was an exchange of views across the Committee. That is no reason for the Leader of the House to say that such exchanges should not take place on part II, which is what will happen if the guillotine motion is passed in its present form. There were lengthy discussions on clause 8, because it deals with compulsory competitive tendering and we wanted to ensure that there was clarification so that members of local authorities could read the report of the deliberations and be aware that we had not received information about the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.

When will we receive the response from the Minister for Housing and Planning about the provision of future housing management services for local authority housing departments. When may we have that report? It is clearly important, but we are being denied the information that is necessary to make a balanced judgment on the extension of compulsory competitive tendering.

Another issue which was raised by Labour members of the Committee should be taken into consideration. Consultative documents were issued to local authorities and other interested organisations for them to comment on, but the closing date of the consultation was 31 January 1992 and the Bill was in Committee before that date. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, members of local authorities have commented on the White Papers and their comments have been submitted to the Department of the Environment, but the Committee has not had the opportunity to consider the results of the consultation. In the interests of democracy, how can Conservative Members say that there should be no time to discuss the Bill further when we are waiting to know exactly what people think about the proposed legislation? We also mentioned voluntary organisations, which have expressed concern about clauses 8 and 9. Members of the Committee know the views of those organisations and their concern about how compulsory competitive tendering will apply to the services in which they are involved. Will provision be made in the contracts for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to ensure that the support that voluntary organisations get from local authority departments will continue if private contractors take over the services?

We have raised the issue of the concern expressed by parish and town councils. Although it was promised in the White Paper that there would be provision for discussion on the involvement of parish and town councils, we have been denied that opportunity. Everyone has received letters from organisations, including parish and town councils, expressing disappointment about the fact that the Government have not fulfilled the promise made in the White Paper. We have reasons to question Ministers and to keep pressing for those questions to be answered.

We also asked why quality and cost should be separate and why there should be double enveloping. There has been no response to the points raised by Labour members of the Committee on those important issues. We are told tonight that, because we pressed those issues so vehemently in the debate on part I and because we took time to ensure that all those matters were put on record, we shall not have the opportunity to do so on part II. That shows the disgraceful way in which the Government are handling the Bill.

Column 91

I accept that all parts of the Bill, not just part II, are important to local government, and we must have the opportunity to discuss the Bill in full. Democracy as it should operate in this country is being denied to hon. Members tonight. All parties have an interest in local government, but it seems that the interest of Conservative Members is based on the guillotine motion. I do not want such a discussion of local government. The sooner that we allow more involvement for local government and more discussion on the provision of local government services, the better. That will come about on 9 April when there is a general election and a change of Government. We shall then allow people to discuss the important issues which affect the destinies and standard of living of many people. I ask the House to reject the motion.

8.2 pm

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : It is difficult not to believe that the opposition by Labour and Liberal Democrat Members to the timetable motion is synthetic. As hon. Members who were present at the start of the debate will know, the comments of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) seemed wholly sympathetic to the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman seemed to feel that the House should increasingly consider the sensible timetabling of Bills such as the Local Government Bill. The Labour party claims, although its claim may be synthetic, that it wants most of the Bill to be on the statute book. Given the agendas of both main Opposition parties, their opposition to the Bill's twin sister, the Local Government Finance Bill which dealt with the abolition of the poll tax, was just about understandable. However, the substance of their objections--especially Labour's--to that Bill and its twin sister, the Local Government Bill, has never been truly clear.

What Labour wants to replace the poll tax with, other than the catchy but wholly meaningless phrase "fair rates", has never been clear or spelt out. After four or five years of internal wrangling within the Labour party, it is not clear what "fair rates" would mean. It has never been understood inside the House and it is certainly not understood outside the House. On the Local Government Bill, we have had opposition for its own sake. The time taken so far to examine the clauses makes it clear that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have wished to ensure that, given the time left to this Parliament, the Bill will fall.

We are addressing two main issues : first, the citizens charter with its related competitive tender and, secondly, the structural and boundary reforms which, it is said, we all want.

Mr. Gould : Did you write this?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : Yes, as a matter of fact, I did.

Mr. Gould : It is very good.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : That is most kind.

Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury) : Give him a signed copy.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I will.

The Labour party has argued, for outside consumption, that it is against not competitive tendering, but

Column 92

compulsory competitive tendering. [ Hon. Members :-- "Yes."] I am grateful for the sedentary confirmation of that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on Second Reading, replying to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), if it is just competitive tendering, the Labour party will not do it, but if it is compulsory competitive tendering, it will have to do it. That is the substance of the debate.

Mr. Clelland : The hon. Gentleman must know that, throughout the years, local government, under the control of whichever political party, has been involved in competitive tendering. It is the compulsory element to which we object. The hon. Gentleman refers to part I. Does he agree that it is part I that is contentious? Does he also agree that we should spend time debating the contentious issue? The Government are not immune to making mistakes on local government legislation, so it should be debated in depth. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it curious that the Government want to rush through the contentious issues to get to the provisions which are not contentious--and on which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) wants to spend a lot of time?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : It is perfectly true that competitive tendering has been available to local authorities for many years--that is not in dispute--but the Bill seeks to ensure that all people, under whichever local authority they live, have the benefit of competitive tendering. The only way to ensure that is to make it the law that such tendering is compulsory. There are exceptions--the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone has always defended his local authority, perhaps rightly--but the vast majority of Labour authorities simply will not carry out competitive tendering.

To give an example, in the run-up to one of our recent local elections, the Labour party in Nottingham feared that it would lose. In a panic, it quickly did a deal with the cleansing department which saved our local authority no less than £400,000. The only reason why it made the effort to save that money was that it feared that the Conservatives would win the local election and that we might go out to some form of tendering. I submit that that is proof positive that Labour councils do the right thing only when we force them to do so. Compulsory competitive tendering is one of the mechanisms that we must have on the statute book to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal from their local authority.

Mr. Martlew : The hon. Gentleman must have been resting during our long debate in Committee. Did not my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) point out that more than 3,000 tenders had gone out and that there were only 30 at most--1 per cent.--to which the Government had any objection? The legislation is already in place for CCT. The Bill merely tightens the screw, and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not sure quite what point he is making.

The Bill provides that, no matter where they live, local ratepayers or local taxpayers--whatever the means by which the finance is raised--have the benefit of compulsory competitive tendering arrangements, which will ensure that they get a fair deal. It must surely be the duty of the House to ensure that.

Next Section

Home Page