| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this subject, bearing in mind his constituency. I, too, attach considerable importance to what we have been loosely referring to as the exemption policy in respect of 30-month-plus cattle. I would prefer to agree that approach with the EU.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside): My right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised that many people are saying that the EU is not working, and that it desperately needs reforming. To turn to matters that are under the control of my right hon. and learned Friend in the culling programme, will he confirm that live weight and dead weight will not give a financial advantage to any one sector? If he were to find that there was a financial advantage and the cost to the taxpayer was being increased, would adjustments be made?
Mr. Hogg: The live weight/dead weight ratio is contained in the conclusions of early April. We secured an agreement at the management committee last Friday that we should have a dead weight option as well on the basis of previous conclusions. In doing that, I was responding to strenuous representations from farming unions.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford): Will my right hon. and learned Friend, who continually refers to persuasion and negotiation, appreciate that there is deep anxiety in my constituency and in all the other agricultural constituencies of the land? Will he bear in mind the fact that, when he refers to urgent assistance, there are some legal remedies that he could employ, or recommend to the Cabinet, including the suspension of payments, which would deal with the Community's cash flow? It would not be a tit-for-tat arrangement, but it would bring to bear on the minds of those representing other member states the realisation that they need our money too.
Mr. Hogg: Of course I am aware, as is my hon. Friend, of the deep anxieties that are felt in rural constituencies, as elsewhere. I have represented a rural constituency since 1979. Indeed, it is one of the most rural of English constituencies. I am anxious to pursue those policies that I deem most likely to bring about a rapid lifting of the ban. I think that I have been doing that. I shall consider any suggestion that is proper, lawful and likely to be effective, but we must consider the consequence of any particular policy.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): While my right hon. and learned Friend is undoubtedly right to pursue a policy of
persuasion and negotiation, does he not agree that the lesson of Luxembourg is that, unfortunately, it looks as if such a policy will take a significant time to achieve the right result, and that, as the negotiations continue, we shall be pushed ever further in the direction of following a slaughtering policy for which there can be no scientific justification? Therefore, will he actively pursue other means that are open to him, especially the legal challenge--bringing, I hope, a case in the European Court for interim measures? That would be a test case, perhaps in more senses than one.
Mr. Hogg: I shall of course pay considerable attention to what my hon. Friend says about the legal challenge. That is an important point. On selective culling, I return to two points that I have made on a number of occasions. First, we could properly pursue only a policy that was proportionate in terms of slaughter, and that was targeted. Secondly, any policy must be one to which the agricultural community and the House will give their broad assent.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest): On collection points, assuming that a selective cull is necessary, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the great concern of farmers in my constituency--indeed in the whole of Worcestershire--that neither Kidderminster cattle market nor any cattle market in Worcestershire has been designated as a collection point? Is he not aware that the already great difficulties caused for farmers as a result of the crisis may be exacerbated by the long-term decline of Kidderminster market if it is not designated as a collection point at this time?
Mr. Hogg: Obviously I am concerned that we should have adequate coverage by way of collection centres. During this afternoon's exchange, four centres have been suggested, and I have a feeling that many others would have been, had you, Madam Speaker, called other hon. Members, so I will not give any commitment in respect of particular markets; but, of course, I take account of what my hon. Friend has so eloquently said.
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe): The Minister has conceded that there are potential welfare problems and that there is a need to ensure the speedy implementation of the measures, which will of course have to be enforced. Given all those factors, is this the right time to make cuts in the state veterinary service's budget? Will he think again about that?
Mr. Hogg: We have made adequate provision to deal with the sort of concerns that are troubling the hon. Gentleman.
Local Authorities (Trading and Competition Powers)
4.37 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow local authorities to trade and compete with private sector providers.
Such a Bill is long overdue. It is needed to clarify beyond doubt the powers that local authorities have to supply services or goods to other organisations. In this vital sector, the law is opaque.
I have always wanted to give local authorities a power of general competence that would allow them to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by Act of Parliament. At present, the position is precisely the reverse. Councils can lawfully act only if the powers have been given to them by Parliament. However, a power of general competence along those lines does not feature in the Bill. It is much more narrowly focused. I therefore hope that it will receive all-party support.
The form of the Bill has emerged after discussions with the Association of Direct Labour Organisations, its director John Roberts, and others. ADLO has a membership of more than 200 councils nationwide, and they are all crying out for clarification of the law. They tell me that they have to negotiate a legal minefield before they can respond positively to requests from local companies or local people who wish to buy their services. Sometimes it is possible, but, more often than not, it is unlawful, and the council must turn down the chance of earning money that could only benefit council tax payers.
Railtrack, whose prospectus is published today, is a case in point. It wanted to contract with councils to cut grass and to remove litter on railway land, but that was outside the powers of local authorities, and the proposal was spiked.
The Bill would allow councils to provide goods and services that are connected with their functions. It would not allow them to set up car companies, for example, in competition with Nissan, or factories to manufacture television sets. However, the Bill would allow councils to acquire premises, appoint staff, and form companies. They would be able to charge for the goods and services they supply, and that has always been a grey area.
These important new powers would be circumscribed by regulations that the Government of the day may consider necessary. The regulations could exclude certain goods or services, or restrict the geographical area within which a local authority may provide goods or services, or may in some way restrict the terms or conditions of any agreement that councils may enter into. I say that for the benefit of Conservatives, who may fear that the new powers would give councils an unfair advantage over other organisations or individuals. The Bill contains plenty of safeguards.
Currently, councils have a restricted range of services in which they can engage in head-to-head competition with the private sector. A council car park is one example. Round the corner from it there may be an NCP car park which is competing head to head for the same trade. However, that is the exception rather than the rule.
Thamesdown Contractors is the trading arm of Thamesdown borough council, and its experience is more typical. It manufactures and supplies PVC window fames,
and can install them in council houses. But if someone exercises his right to buy his council house and wants the council to put in a new set of windows, the council cannot do it, because it would be against the law. That is clearly absurd. There are many other such examples.
Many councils employ arboriculturists to deal with trees that overhang highways or are in public parks. Out of the goodness of their hearts, they often offer advice to individuals on the care and preservation of trees and so on. Sometimes they advise on the design of new developments, but on the strict application of the law, they are unable to respond to requests from local people who want their services and would be prepared to pay for them.
Motor vehicle services are also important. Virtually every council has a fleet of vehicles that needs to be looked after. Why is it not possible for that service to be offered more widely? Councils are well placed to undertake the maintenance of private gardens and sports pitches, but it is legally impossible. The surfacing of private car parks or drives in conjunction with highway work on an adjoining site is possible. It is absurd that a council laying tarmac cannot run it up a private drive whose owner is prepared to pay for it. That is an eminently sensible idea, but it is unlawful.
Many councils grow plants, and the cost to the parks departments of putting in a few extra plants is minimal. Although all the gardeners out there would like to buy plants from local authorities, it is impossible. There are many areas in which people would freely choose to buy services, but the law prevents them from doing so.
I mentioned safeguards. No one wants to see florists, glaziers or local garages put out of business by local authorities, and anyone who suggests that that would happen is misrepresenting the Bill. The councils want the famous level playing field, no more and no less. They do not want unfair advantages. As I have said, the law is opaque. The power to trade is severely circumscribed, and is permitted only by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, which sets out the limited room for manoeuvre that is open to councils.
The Audit Commission has taken a narrow view of council powers. According to the Municipal Journal, its advice to district auditors has been the kiss of death to direct service organisations. That is true. There are people who take a much less restrictive view, arguing that it is permissible, lawful and sensible for councils to contract to provide services and employ staff to carry out the agreement. Tragically, that has never been tested in the courts. Local authorities have always erred on the side of caution, fearful that they might be visited by the district auditor, who would exact terrible retribution if the council spent money when it had no lawful authority to do so.
The Department of the Environment has confused things even more in a letter that was sent to the local authority associations on 7 December last year. It apparently gives the green light to local authority trading, stating:
"It is the Department's view that local authorities have powers to trade for profit and to take on staff for the purposes of those trading activities."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |