House of Commons
Tuesday 30 April 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT
Westminster Council
1. Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the level of revenue support grant settlement in 1996-97 with respect to Westminster council. [25671]
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have received a number of representations, including some that point out that, when compared with a city such as Liverpool, Westminster has been much less generously treated by the Government than it was under the previous Labour Government.
Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if every council got the same help that Westminster gets, 336 out of the 358 councils would be able to pay a rebate and that 10 would be able to pay a rebate of more than £900 per council tax payer? Is not that political largesse completely unjustifiable by anyone outside the Conservative party? It is a political fix and he should admit it and be ashamed.
Mr. Gummer: What I will confirm is that if the same figures had been arranged under a Labour Government, more people would have been able to do more than that. That shows how ridiculous the hon. Gentleman's proposition is. If all councils were given the same money as Tower Hamlets, there would not be an area in the country that would not be able to do much better than he suggested, but the Labour party controls Tower Hamlets, so it does not like to say that.
Mr. Brooke: As the working population of my constituency exceeds the national average by a factor of almost 20 and exceeds that of any other constituency by a factor of five, will my right hon. Friend accept my representation that I am glad that he has noticed that my two authorities are different in category and not only in degree?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend may also have noticed that all independent observers point out that the system that we use is objective and the most sophisticated in the world. The only person who does not believe that is the hon. Member for Holborn and
St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who said that he does not accept what experts say. That is because they never agree with him.
Ms Armstrong: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the experts disagree that Westminster is the fourth most deprived area and say that this is a serious matter that the Government should address? Should not the Government address the fact that, if Trafford got the same council tax support as Westminster, it would be able to give every council tax payer £527 back; Rochdale would be able to give £303 back; and Oldham would be able to give £145 back? The Westminster skew is a fiddle; everyone knows it and will show it on Thursday.
Mr. Gummer: It is odd that, when the hon. Lady was asked about it, she said that she would not like to promise major changes in the system that we use. She is condemned out of her own mouth. She knows that what she says is not accepted by any of the Labour-controlled local authority organisations and that no one from any political party who understands the system agrees with her. She knows that she is trying to mislead the country. The country knows it, too, and will show it on Thursday.
Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend know that Wokingham district council is receiving no revenue support grant this year, yet, for the third successive year, Conservatives have offered a cut in the council tax while offering improved services? Unfortunately, the Liberals have forced through a 13 per cent. increase in the council tax and a deterioration in services. Does not that show that Thursday matters and that people must vote Conservative on Thursday for lower taxes?
Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is too kind to the Opposition parties--it is true not just in Wokingham, but throughout the country, that it costs £225 a year more to have a Labour council than a Conservative council. What is more, the Audit Commission shows that people get less for paying more. They pay more with Labour and get worse services. That is what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is trying to hide with his wholly spurious comments about Westminster.
Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
2. Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [25672]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): My Department has made no estimate of future sales.
Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree that the scheme has been another sunken disaster flagship policy for the Tory party--a waste of money and a waste of time? Would it not be more sensible, if the Government are really concerned about housing, to do something to help people with mortgage difficulties, perhaps by considering a mortgages-to-rents policy instead of a rents-to-mortgages policy?
Mr. Clappison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an effort to help people into home ownership is a waste of time. He will be aware that it is one of a range of policies through which we have promoted home ownership since 1979. Due to that range of policies, more than 1.5 million people are home owners, including 2,000 former council tenants in his constituency. I make no apologies for promoting home ownership. Tens of thousands of people are going into home ownership through such schemes every year. One of the interesting things about the scheme is that it is an attempt to help those on lower incomes into home ownership. The hon. Gentleman's party is turning its back on those people, just as it is turning its back on those who want opportunities in education by threatening to abolish child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. Labour is turning its back on home ownership and education.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that attack on the rents-to-mortgages scheme and Labour's votes yesterday to restrict the right to buy show that new Labour has the same stupid prejudices as old Labour?
Mr. Clappison: The same instincts are there. Labour has criticised every attempt to help people into home ownership and it is still doing so.
Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister now admit that, despite 13 clauses in legislation, huge publicity efforts and £140,000-worth of promotional expenditure, the Government have managed to persuade just 15 people in the country to take up the scheme? Does the Under-Secretary of State recall his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, saying in Committee of another Tory white elephant--the infamous tenants' choice scheme--
- "it is daft to leave in the Bill something that does not work and is therefore redundant, so we will get shot of it."--[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 April 1996; c. 1037.]
When will the Government get shot of the absurd rents-to-mortgages scheme and, more to the point, when will the country get shot of this absurd Government?
Mr. Clappison:
The import of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that it is wrong for Governments to explore opportunities for helping people into home ownership. The success of our policy is reflected in the more than 1.5 million people who have gone into home ownership since 1979. I am surprised that Labour's spokesman on housing is adopting the criticisms of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He should be aware that, in his constituency, more than 7,000 householders have been helped into home ownership since 1979. We make no apologies for trying to help people into home ownership.
3. Mr. Clapham:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to strengthen the position of workplace safety representatives; and if he will make a statement. [25673]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford):
The current system of workplace safety representatives works well, but we
Mr. Clapham:
It is interesting that the Minister says that consultation procedures are to be modified, as he will know that safety representatives, working through their safety committees, have been an enormous influence in reducing accidents but that accidents have increased in some industries, such as mining. A couple of weeks ago, I drew to the Minister's attention the fact that a mining company operating in Northumberland--Stormgate Mining Ltd.--had not renewed its employer's liability insurance, yet men were working at that colliery. In his modified consultation procedure, will he arrange with the Coal Authority a register of all the activities of companies employed in the mining industry, to include a copy of the employer's liability insurance certificate, so that it can be viewed by the safety representatives at the colliery?
Sir Paul Beresford:
We are looking at, reviewing and giving consideration to this case.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |