Amendment Of Section 201 Of Act Of 1947
Lords Amendmen: No. 20, in page 15, line 36, leave out Clause 19.
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment seeks to eliminate Clause 19 from the Bill. The question of Clause 19 has been discussed by the House on a number of occasions. We discussed the matter on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report. Therefore we are dealing with a matter which has been very well covered already. In those circumstances I intend simply to state briefly again the Government position on this matter. The effect of Clause 19 is to amend Section 201 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, which is the basic provision at the moment dealing with default procedures. Section 201 is a defective section in that once the Secretary of State has decided whether or not a surcharge should be made upon the persons in default, the persons become liable jointly to pay the whole amount involved. That is an inflexible procedure. That was recognised by the previous Government, because they introduced a provision in the Local Government Act (Scotland) 1973 which said that the Secretary of State, in applying these default procedures, must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including such information as may be available to him as to the means of any persons concerned and their ability to pay. Therefore the 1973 Act allows the necessary flexibility to the Secretary of State and it allows the Secretary of State to have regard to the ability to pay of the persons concerned. Section 19 of the Bill seeks to insert a similar provision into the present law and to allow the Secretary of State to consider any interim reports from auditors, received by him at any time after 1st September 1973, in the terms of the clause as we have laid it out here, so that he can have regard to all of the circumstances of the case. That will include the similar provision contained in the 1973 Act regarding information available to the Secretary of State as to the means of any person against whom a surcharge might be made. The reason for this clause is that we wish the additional flexibility with which it will provide us to be used in dealing with interim reports which have arisen from the default of councillors under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act 1972. I shall not argue the case again. The principle of flexibility and of having this kind of method in dealing with interim reports is accepted by both sides of the House because a similar provision appeared in the Conservative Government's 1973 Act. The second point is that there is no question of retrospection in the sense of the Secretary of State being able to use this power to absolve any councillor from a liability which he has incurred already because no surcharges have been made, and therefore there is no question of any person who is under a penalty at the moment having that penalty removed by this provision. Therefore in that sense—which is the major sense of retrospection—there is no retrospection involved in the clause. As I say, when we discussed this matter before, the main argument that we used was that, particularly in the circumstances with which we were dealing under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, it did not make sense to deal with these matters under the inflexible powers of the 1947 Act. It is meaningless in a practical sense because we know that in most cases the councillors concerned are highly unlikely to be able to afford to pay surcharges based on the loss of revenue involved in the interim reports.
Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that the councillors cannot afford to pay? Has he any evidence that the ratepayers in the areas concerned can afford to pay?
We have gone over this ground considerably. In some instances, the ratepayers have already paid. This, again, is a difference between the Scottish and the English situations, because the deficits concerned have been rated for already. So there is no issue outstanding on that matter, either.
The real question is whether we want to proceed by the present inflexible procedures, or whether we want to use the more flexible procedures provided for under Clause 19. I repeat that the need for flexibility was recognised by the previous Government, as was the need for a little common sense and humanity in dealing with this matter. Although I am sorry to say that that does not seem to have been recognised by the Conservative Opposition in this House, it has been recognised by the former Secretary of State, now in another place. Lord Campbell, in another place, did not use the arguments that have been used in this House about Clause 19. I imagine that one reason for that was that, as the Secretary of State who introduced the 1973 Act, he found himself under certain inhibitions when it came to attacking Clause 19 in the wholehearted way in which it was attacked by his right hon. and hon. Friends in this House. Lord Campbell said that he thought that the procedures under the 1947 Act should be carried through to their logical conclusion. He suggested that at that point the Secretary of State should introduce some form of parliamentary process in relation to the individuals concerned to mitigate or ameliorate the full rigour of the law. I see one or two Opposition Members showing some puzzlement about that. It is puzzlement that I share. It seems an extraordinary proposition. If that were to happen, the parliamentary proposals which have been referred to could be done only by legislation, and it seems a remarkably cumbersome way of reaching what is essentially the same result to go through the procedures of the 1947 Act and, having reached certain conclusions about them, then to come to Parliament to have the procedures set aside and tempered by new legislation having some regard to the new situation.Does the Minister agree that if we followed Lord Campbell's proposals in the other place and brought in separate legislation after the procedures of the 1947 Act had been carried through, it would in effect be retrospective legislation?
Yes. I was about to make that point. It is an extraordinary proposition. As I have pointed out, we are not providing for retrospective legislation, but to go through the procedures would mean retrospective indemnity for the councillors concerned. It is an extraordinary proposition and procedure.
If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) agrees with what was put in the other place—we must assume that the Conservative Party has also changed its mind about it—the Opposition are putting forward a quite extraordinary proposition. It is a circuitous way of reaching what can be arrived at in a more direct way by providing the additional flexibility that we are providing in Clause 19. When the Clause is reinserted, as we wish, and my right hon. Friend makes decisions on these matters, he will be able to use the provisions of the clause and take account of all the circumstances, including the means of the persons concerned. It is not for me to anticipate the decisions that my right hon. Friend will reach. It is for this House to provide him with the statutory power to reach decisions in a sensible and practical way. I hope that it will also have regard to the fact that the 1972 Act raised violent emotions. It meant that law-abiding councillors felt so strongly about what was being imposed on local authorities by the then Government that they had to make a stand, even if that stand were against the law. It was an unhappy episode in the relationship between central and local government. It is sensible to put that episode behind us as neatly and cleanly as we can. That was part of the purpose of Clause 19. That is why we want it reinstated in the Bill.The Minister, in a rather unusual speech, has appealed to us to show humanity, flexibility and common sense. Several times he asked, "What is the issue in the debate?" The issue is whether a substantial sum of money in Clydebank and elsewhere should be paid by the law-breaking councillors or by the law-abiding citizens and ratepayers of Clydebank. This is the only issue that we have to decide.
I hope that Members of the Scottish National Party, who have a most unusual record on this issue, which ended on Report with them standing by lawbreaking councillors, will note that the issue that we have to decide is whether the law-breaking councillors or the law-abiding ratepayers pay for the law breaking. That is all that we are deciding tonight. The Minister said that we had discussed this issue on many occasions. Indeed, it has become known as the Clydebank issue, although it affects a substantial number of burghs in Scotland. That is because the Clydebank council, for a variety of reasons, has a special notoriety. We have protested each time because we consider that to propose what is undoubtedly retrospective legislation for bailing out law-breaking councillors is one of the most shameful and cynical steps ever taken by a democratic Government. 11.0 p.m. This is nothing more than a shabby political pay-off to a bunch of irresponsible councillors who brought shame on Scottish local government. The flouting of the law was not a passing protest. It was a deliberate and politically motivated flouting of the will of a democratically-elected Parliament. Second, the issue was part of a campaign of deliberate political distortion by the Labour Party about the Housing Finance Act 1972—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) always talks a great deal on these occasions. I can remember him and others saying that tenants could not afford to pay 50p extra a week. Now he and all his hon. Friends are supporting the Secretary of State in cheerfully forcing up the rents of SSHA and other houses. Is he prepared to sit down in protest in front of St. Andrew's House because the Secretary of State is forcing up the rents of the council tenants in his con- stituency? I think that he will be a lot quieter now than he was on the Tory Bill. Third, the Government are creating a new concept of law which was summarised in his usual weak and apologetic fashion, which he displayed tonight, by the Minister of State in Committee on 6th February. When asked specifically whether the law should be obeyed—a simple question, one would have thought, to put to a Minister, an hon. Member or a judge—he gave a splendid answer:If that is the attitude of the Labour Party—"Local authorities should not disobey the law, but I take the view that where, unfortunately, it happens, one has to take account of why it happens and whether the Government have behaved unreasonably."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 6th February 1975, c. 124]
A very good answer.
I am astonished that the Government Chief Whip should consider that a very good answer. When we are considering whether the law should be obeyed, it is no answer to say, "It should be obeyed, but…" If this miserable Government last beyond the winter, which is highly unlikely, they will have cause to regret their advice to councillors about obeying the law.
If a Conservative Government said that I was not allowed to go to a Roman Catholic church, I would tell the hon. Gentleman and his crowd to get stuffed, and I would still go.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would, and good luck to him. If a law is passed to which he objects, let him stand up for his principles and take the consequences, but do not let him go to the Labour Party and say, "I have disobeyed the law. When you get back to power, bail me out." As an honourable man, the right hon. Gentleman would stand by his principles and take the consequences. He and his colleagues would not go to the Labour Party and, as part of a dirty, shabby political deal, say, "Buy our principles out when you return to power." Yet that is what the Clydebank councillors did. The Labour Party said, "Disobey the law and we will bail you out." I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not do anything like that.
In the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in a vain attempt to persuade the Lords to accept the clause, said that the councillors could not afford to pay the surcharge. We have heard heart-rending tales tonight of the poverty of the Clydebank councillors. Has the Minister made inquiries into the finances of the ratepayers of Clydebank? Have they piles of extra money? If the Minister has taken the trouble to find out whether the councillors could afford to pay for their law-breaking, he should also have found out about the ratepayers.They have plenty of money.
I hope that that remark will be noted. The councillors cannot afford to pay, according to the hon. Gentleman, but the ratepayers have plenty of money. The shipyard workers who are being put out of work by the Government's actions will, I hope, bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman thinks that they have plenty of money to pay for law-breaking councillors. Even if they had plenty of money, if the streets of Clydebank were paved with gold, it would he shameful for the hon. Gentleman to say that law-breaking councillors should not pay while law-abiding ratepayers should.
Is the Minister saying that the people of Clydebank can afford to pay and that the Government will insist that they do? It will be the height of Socialist injustice if decent, law-abiding citizens of Clydebank have their families thrown out on to the streets and their furniture sold because they cannot afford to pay their rates, while the Secretary of State is gleefully adding to the Clydebank rates burden by passing retrospective legislation to transfer a fine for contempt of court from law-breaking councillors to law-abiding ratepayers. I see the Chief Whip laughing. Would he do me a favour? Would he ask the Secretary of State for the up-to-date position? What is the number of people who have been taken to court and had everything sold because they could not afford to pay the rates? He would be shocked by the answer.
Nobody.
I have not the information here, but what I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I had 200 people in my constituency who were put out. That is the simple fact.
Give us one case.
The simple fact is—
Give us one case.
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt from a sedentary position.
rose—
I will give the hon. Member—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he is asking and then I shall be glad to give way.
Give me one case. Give me one case.
Order. The hon. Gentleman must bide his time.
In my constituency last year, I had more than 100 people put out of their homes because, for one reason or another, they could not afford to pay the combined rent and rates bill.
Would the hon. Gentleman give us one case in his constituency where people were put out because they could not afford to pay the rates?
I could give the hon. Gentleman that, but not now. However, I promise him that immediately after this debate I will give him the information, with name and address, of one, particularly, of those who could not pay rates. I can give him a list of 20 in relation to rent and rates. He will be aware that rates are paid direct. He will accept that people in Scotland are facing hardship and considerable hardship. It is shameful that Clydebank councillors should not pay, but that the tenants and residents there should.
The Minister of State put a fair question: what did we suggest should be done? To my mind there is only one just and honourable solution. It was the Scottish Labour Party in Parliament and outside which stirred up a campaign of political distortion about the Housing Act—and some Scottish nationalists. They incited the councillors to break the law. It is the funds of the Labour Party in Scotland which should pay the bill for law breaking. This, as we see it, is the clear message sent to us from the Lords—that we should find a just solution. We have to answer two simple questions, and I hope that even hon. Members with closed minds, such as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), will think clearly about those two questions. First, should the rule of law be upheld? Our answer is a definite "Yes". If hon. Members vote against that, they will regret it. The second question is, who should pay the bill, the law-breaking councillors and their notorious political associates or the ratepayers of Clydebank who have broken no law and committed no sin, except that they have been unfortunate enough to live under the jurisdiction of Clydebank Council? There can be only one answer. We must vote for the rule of law and for justice.I did not propose to speak in this debate until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman is known as a two-hatted politician. When he is walking in the middle-class, owner-occupier areas of Cathcart he wears a top hat. He has been wearing it tonight. When he walks among the municipal tenants in Castlemilk he wears his Keir Hardie cloth cap. As usual, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the Government's case. I congratulate the Government on disagreeing with the Lords amendment and on proposing that the Bill should stand as it was before it went to the House of Lords.
We in Parliament and people in the councils throughout Scotland opposed the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 on various principles and grounds. We said that it had been introduced to solve a problem which did not apply to Scotland. In Scotland, 80 per cent. of the people live in tenanted houses of either private owners or public authorities. In England and Wales, less than 50 per cent. of the people live in public authority houses. The case advanced by the hon. Member for Cathcart was advanced in the context of England where the majority of the people live in owner-occupied houses. It has no relevance in Scotland because most of the people live in private or public authority tenanted houses. We opposed the 1972 Act on the ground that it was unfair to council tenants. We said that the Conservative Government were welshing on agreements which had been made between successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, and successive councils under Conservative, Independent and Labour control from 1919 until 1972. During that time various housing Acts were passed under each of which agreements had been made between the local authorities and the Government. The local authorities agreed to build the houses and the Government agreed to pay subsidies towards their cost. The Tory Government said that under the 1972 Act they would welsh on those agreements. We therefore opposed it. Many of us advised our colleagues in the councils to oppose its implementation. I am glad that the present Government are taking the opportunity of reversing the decision of the House of Lords. The House of Lords does not represent the people of Scotland, just as the Opposition do not represent the people of Scotland. The Tory Party is a rump party in Scotland. Even the Scottish National Party has a greater say in Scotland than the official Opposition. I congratulate the Government on what they have done. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who has many family connections with Clay Cross. that the Scottish Ministers have done better for the councillors who opposed the Tory Act in Scotland than the English housing Ministers have done for the Clay Cross councillors. We are not going round the House asking Scottish Members to sign Early Day Motions in support of our colleagues in Clay Cross. We do not need to, because we have great confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. When the Bill is passed the slate will have been wiped clean, and we shall start afresh. We are preparing for the next battle, not against the Tories but against our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who have accepted that the Scottish Special Housing Association should increase its rents by £26 a year, and who have also accepted an increase in New Town Corporation rents. The Tories are irrelevant. While we congratulate our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Bill, we are preparing for that battle against rent increases which they favour.11.15 p.m.
The arguments on this issue have been advanced many times, and do not require further rehearsal. All Scottish Members have had to live in an atmosphere of fire and fury over the consequences of Clause 19 for a considerable time. The last time we debated the matter we had a near apoplectic performance by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). He and his hon. Friends desire retribution and their pound of flesh. At the other extreme we have heard extreme Socialist speeches by the hon. Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie).
Against all that, I am glad to see wiser counsels prevailing in Government circles. I am particularly glad that in another place Lord Hughes appeared to concede what has been the SNP policy all along—that while councillors may well be surcharged there should be due regard to their personal circumstances. Our concern has been to temper justice with mercy. The clause says that the Secretary of StateMy party has taken that to include the circumstances of the ratepayers in the locality. If they do not like what is happening, they can obtain redress at the next elections."shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case".
Have the hon. Gentleman and his party made inquiries in Clydebank to find out whether the ratepayers can afford to pay?
Circumstances in Clydebank are in the hands of the ratepayers at the next election.
Under the clause the Secretary of State has the duty to pay due regard toThat is an important and just principle, well in accord with the laws of Scotland. It allows for necessary discretion on the part of the Secretary of State, preventing Scots from being faced with having their wages arrested, with sequestration of their assets, with their furniture being seized, and with being made bankrupt. The last time the issue was debated I described it as a grey area of Scots political life. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of Scots Members opposed the 1973 Tory rent Act. If we had had a sovereign Scots Parliament it would never have gone through. A second grey area is the confusion over retrospection. All that has happened is an attempt to vary the regulations. No decision is being specifically recalled. All we are dealing with is a variation of the criteria. In their 1973 Act the Tories said that it was necessary for the Secretary of State to have some discretion. If they conceded that then, why not now, and why waste the time of the House in further mud slinging? The SNP does not assent to the proposition that there should be no surcharge or penalty on councillors who stand by their beliefs. We reasonably accept that some charge should be laid. All we say is that, given the magnitude of the sum involved and the corporate nature of that sum—£20,000—all the circumstances should be taken into account and some regard made to the personal means of the councillors as with any other individual who appears before the courts."such information as may be available to him as to the means of any person against whom a surcharge might be made".
This is a matter of the greatest importance and I sometimes have wondered during the debate whether some hon. Members comprehend the principles upon which this Chamber and the law of the land operate, whether in Scotland or England.
Away back to your castle.
It is no use the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) trying to make frivolous points by pointing out that the small Scottish house I live in happened at one time to have been fortified. It is useful to know, in the sort of dispensation that the hon. Member would like, that it would not have to be fortified because there were no principles and that one would always be safe in the knowledge that one's point of view was right.
Let us be clear about the principles we are discussing. The question is whether the citizen is entitled to take the view that in support of his opinion, whether poltical or, as the Chief Whip said, religious, or on whatever subject, he is entitled to break the law. If he takes the view that he is, this legislature imposes penalties upon him. Most people are willing to pay that penalty. In the example that the Chief Whip gave, if this legislature passed a law saying that people were forbidden from worshipping in a particular way, they would no doubt defy that law and pay the penalty. It is another matter, however, to say that, having defied the law and having paid that penalty, someone who sympathises with that citizen will remove the penalty and apply it to someone else who did not break the law.We are dealing here not just with Clydebank. There were, for instance, local authorities which were technically in default but which had no wish to break the law. In order to obey the law they had to anticipate it.
There has never been a circumstance so far as I know, until the recent Finance Act, in which in order to obey the law one had to anticipate it.
This was one.
Let us be under no doubt that the penalty one man has incurred under the law as it stands has been passed to those who have not offended against any law. The basis upon which this has been argued is that it would be unfair if those who did not like the law had to pay the penalty for disobeying it. Is it not more unfair that those who, whether they liked it or not, did not disobey the law have to pay the penalty of those who did? In Clydebank it is not just a question of the surcharge being incurred because councillors spent money in a particular way. Therefore this is a method of distributing between one rate- payer and another that which in cumulo they would all have had to pay.
They defied the law and the courts of Scotland. I hope that the SNP is proud of them. They were fined for contempt of court and that fine was then transferred to people who had gone about their legal and proper business. If that is not unfair, not a dictatorship, if that is not anarchy, I do not know what is.The hon. Member comments on fairness. Would he like to comment on the proposal advanced by the Minister of State in quoting what was said by Lord Campbell of Croy in another place about extraordinary legislation being required after the proposals of the 1947 Act had gone through? Does he not agree that, were such special legislation of a retrospective nature to be prosecuted by Parliament, the cost of indemnifying the councillors concerned would pass to the general body of taxpayers of the United Kingdom? Is not the principle the same for ratepayers?
I am not particularly interested, when we are debating what the Government are putting forward, in what Lord Campbell of Croy put forward in another place. We can discuss that at another time. What is important is that we are saying here, first, that it is not fair if someone transgresses because he thinks a law is unfair, to pass his transgression on to another person who has not transgressed against the law.
Second, the Government are saying—and it seems a remarkable proposition—that when someone has offended against the law, the Secretary of State should say to him, "Let me see whether you can afford the penalty." We have a situation in which people can say, "I am rather hard up and therefore I am entitled to break as many laws as I like and to get as lenient a penalty as I can afford."In that case may I ask whether the hon. Member would extend his condemnation to his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, because that is exactly the law they enacted for the new local councils which are to take over o a 16th May?
I will reserve my condemnation for the right hon. Gentleman alone because he is proposing this law. He knows that it is wrong. We are transferring wrongs to people who are not in the wrong.
The SNP wants the best of both worlds. On the one hand it wants to be a friend of the Labour Party. It does not surprise me that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) should want to appear to be a friend of the Labour Party because he once was a member of that party and for all I know he probably still is. The principle is indivisible. The judgment of Solomon was that something was either right or wrong. It is ridiculous to say that we can compromise the principle and half protect the person who is responsible for compromising the principle.11.30 p.m.
Would the hon. Member not agree—referring to a point he has just made—that judges generally consider a person's circumstances when they come to pronounce sentence?
I agree with that, but let us not forget that the judge is pronouncing upon an offence that has been committed. What is said here is that whatever offence is committed, the penalty will be decided according to a person's ability to pay, not upon the extent of the offence, or the charge that is placed upon other people who have committed no offence. That is the difference. It is an important difference in principle.
The Government propose that those who have done wrong shall not suffer a penalty but shall be entitled to transfer the penalty to those who have obeyed the law. That is a breach of every principle upon which European democracy has been founded. It is a breach of the principle of the law as we have understood it. There are plenty of laws passed in this place which I do not like, but I would not claim the right of any member of the Conservative Party or of any other party to escape from the penalties of disobeying the law, whatever his conscience may say about it.It is pleasant to follow someone who has just lectured us on obeying the law but who earns part of his income from defending people who disobey the law.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that an advocate in the course of his duty is defending people contrary to their instructions just because they have been accused of a crime and are subsequently acquitted?
Withdraw.
I have no intention of withdrawing.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order and in accordance with the spirit of the House, and has it ever been in accordance with the spirit of the House, for hon. Members on either side to cast personal aspersions on the occupations of other hon. Members?
I was not aware from the remarks of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that aspersions were being cast upon the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn).
Tonight I have listened to hon. Members on the Conservative benches maligning good, decent working-class people on Clydebank and elsewhere. This is a debating chamber, not a sixth-form debating society. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is well able to look after himself.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would do better to direct his lecture on the rule of law at Salisbury, Rhodesia than at Clydebank, Scotland. In his parliamentary career he has supported rebellion against the Crown, in that he voted against the application of sanctions to Southern Rhodesia. He should not pretend that he believes in the sanctity of the law in absolute terms. Underlying all law must be the agreement of the people in the Government's judgment, or at least their acquiescence in it. No one can say that a Government could introduce any law under the sun I say to anyone who questions the legality of the action taken by the Clydebank councillors that the Clydebank councillors had more legality on their side than had the Tory Government. The Clydebank councillors tested their point of view with the Clydebank electorate.On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we talking about Rhodesia, about Clydebank or what? Will you please ask the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) to talk about the subject we are debating?
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) must develop his argument in his own way.
Far be it from me to suggest that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is a little slow on the uptake. We passed Rhodesia a long time ago. I was about to say that obviously Scottish Conservatives had forgotten about the Rhodesian affair.
In 1970, for what reasons I do not know, they produced a separate Scottish manifesto, tested it separately with the Scottish electorate and had it rejected substantially. So there was no mandate for the introduction of the Housing Finance Bill. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is looking extremely puzzled. If he thinks back to as long ago as 1970 he will remember that that manifesto was introduced. The real question is why—I have been listening to the debate and I am trying to follow the hon. Member's argument. There are many areas in the south of England in which there are virtually no Labour councillors or Members of Parliament. Following the hon. Member's argument, does he agree that Conservative councillors in those areas would be fully entitled to defy laws passed by the present Parliament and expect, after that defiance, to be indemnified by a future Conservative Government?
After that question I cannot understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] I am about to answer. I was about to pay the hon. Member a compliment. After that question I cannot understand how he managed to write "Scotch on the Rocks".
Will my hon. Friend refer the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) to a copy of today's edition of Hansard, when it is published, so that he can see what his own Front Bench and his hon. Friend were saying about the Community Land Bill?
The hon. Member will no doubt take note of that remark.
Why did the Conservative Party submit a separate Scottish election manifesto if it intended to ignore it entirely? I believe that it is shameful and cynical for a political party to test its opinions on the electorate and then to ignore the electorate's point of view. More important still, the real accusation against the Tory Party of those days was that when Scotland was crying out for houses to house her homeless families, all that it could do was to pursue a political vendetta against the Scottish Labour movement. I am delighted that the Labour Government will wipe the slate clean, so that we can start on the real problem of Scotland and put decent roofs over the heads of the decent working-class people of Scotland.I shall draw the threads of the debate together as quickly as possible. The Minister made an important point earlier, when he said that the Conservative Party—the last Government—introduced legislation which was similar in certain aspects to the 1973 Act, so why do we oppose this clause? I would mention one essential fact to the Minister. Under the 1973 Act was not incumbent upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to take penalties from councillors and put those penalties elsewhere. The Act merely gave the Secretary of State flexibility if there were grounds for it. So whether one used flexibility depended to a large extent on one's expectations of the way in which the Secretary of State would use it.
We all know that the reason for this enabling clause in this retrospective piece of legislation is to allow the Secretary of State to indemnify the councillors of Clydebank who broke the law, or councillors elsewhere in Scotland—
The hon. Member will recognise that there are other councils involved. For instance, Paisley is involved. That was a town council which had resolved to obey the law. Yet that council is involved in this legislation.
I accept entirely what the hon. Member says. I mentioned "elsewhere in Scotland". There is no contradiction between supporting the 1973 Act, which gives greater flexibility to the Secretary of State, and opposing this clause, which would give retrospective powers to the Secretary of State. We all dislike retrospective legislation in general, but especially this legislation, because we believe that it will be used by this Government—who have little stomach for defending law and order—for indemnifying defaulting councillors and encouraging others to defy the law for their own purposes. A reasonable Secretary of State would not use the powers in this clause.
The councillors deliberately broke the law and they did so with full intent. Some of them gloried in their prospective martyrdom. I sum up my attitude towards them in the words of a distinguished member of the Labour Party referring to a distinguished colleague in the Labour Party. Mr. Ernest Bevin said of George Lansbury.Far from setting light to the faggots of any councillors in Scotland, the Secretary of State has decided instead to burn up the money of the Clydebank ratepayers."He has been carrying these martyr's faggots around with him for years. All I did was to set a light to them."
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not take his analogy further. Had he done his research properly he would have found that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who relieved Lansbury and his colleagues of the surcharge.
I am interested in that. If the hon. Gentleman will send me chapter and verse I shall consider it fully.
The situation in Scotland is quite different from the situation in England. In Scotland a fine of £20,000 was imposed on the councillors of Clydebank, and that did not happen to the gentlemen in England whom the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows so well. I see no humanity and no justice in imposing upon the ratepayers of Clydebank a fine of —20,000 which was incurred by their councillors. It is argued that councillors are the elected representatives of the ratepayers and the ratepayers are therefore liable for the consequences of the councillors' actions. The answer is that the ratepayers are responsible only for the actions of their councillors if those actions are within the terms of their office and the law. No public servant in this country can be elected to perform criminal actions. Such actions must always be ultra vires. For example, if a Member of Parliament owed a sum of money his electors would have a great grievance if they were asked to pay for the peccadilloes of their representative. That is a precise analogy to the Clydebank councillors. If the Government give in to the lawbreakers in this case, they will have no moral right to object to ratepayers who refuse to pay their rates, to self-employed persons who refuse to pay their national insurance contributions, to Scottish fishermen who blockade Scottish ports, or to any person in our society who takes the law into his own hands. Respect for the law is indivisible, and if one part of the law is brought into disrepute by defiance, other people are encouraged to defy it for their own purposes. The only reason for the clause is to allow the Secretary of State to indemnify the councillors at the expense of innocent ratepayers.Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the statement advanced by the Minister of State on the remarks by the leader of the Conservative group in the House of Lords which produced the amendment? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no difference between an indemnity now and an indemnity by special legislation brought in later which is properly and truly retrospective?
It is essential that the ratepayers of Clydebank should not be forced to pay the £20,000 fine which was imposed on the councillors. I hope that I am wrong in my suspicions, and I would welcome an assurance from the Secretary of State that he has no intention to penalise the ratepayers, but without that assurance we cannot afford to give the Secretary of State the powers contained in the clause which we believe he will almost certainly dreadfully misuse.
11.45 p.m.
We have covered a fair bit of ground tonight, not all of it completely relevant to the debate, and I will briefly comment on some of the matters that have been raised.
I am a little puzzled to understand why there is still so much excitement about the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, because the Government completely repealed that Act by a Bill which went through the House during this parliamentary Session. That episode is now closed. We are dealing with what is essentially a tie-up operation. No explanation has been given during Second Reading, in Committee, on Report or during this debate why this provision should be so shocking when it is almost the same as a provision that was included by the Conservative Government in the 1973 Act. What can be so intrinsically disagreeable, dishonourable, evil or sinister about this provision when it is essentially the same as the provision which the Conservative Government introduced for similar reasons—no doubt, very good reasons—in the 1973 Act? I have asked that question on numerous occasions and I ask it again. No justification has been advanced for the charges that have been made by the Conservative Opposition, and they introduced almost exactly the same provision in 1973. But the case is much stronger than that. Not only was the change made in the 1973 Act, but there were cases of interim reports by auditors on other matters—for example, school milk—under the 1947 legislation. However, no action was taken by the Secretary of State. It was not a question of looking at the circumstances and the means of the persons concerned. It was simply that no action was taken. No surcharges were made in the school milk case, although certain councillors in Scotland deliberately defied the law. What is the difference between taking action under earlier legislation and doing what the Government are attempting to do under the Bill? One difference is that the previous Secretary of State achieved particular conclusions by default. At least we are honest enough to put our intentions in the Bill so as to give the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility in the light of all the circumstances, including the circumstances of the ability to pay of the councillors concerned. Having taken these powers, I cannot anticipate how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will implement them. However, we are introducing them quite openly because we believe that it would not be right for my right hon. Friend merely to act by default in the manner adopted by his predecessor. We believe that if the Secretary of State wishes to have flexibility he should have the necessary powers written exclusively in an Act of Parliament. That is what the argument is about. It is not about retrospection because there is no retrospection involved. There has been a good deal of argument about ability to pay. I wish some Conservative Members would explain, as a matter of practicalities, how some of these surcharges if imposed in full on some of the councillors concerned could be levied in practice. It is an impracticable proposition because we are dealing with very substantial sums of money and with councillors of very limited means. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fair-bairn) said that we were excusing—or "indemnifying" was the word he used, which is an inaccurate use of that legal expression—councillors from paying the penalty. But there have been no penalties imposed on them and therefore they cannot pay them. He said that we were excusing those councillors from payment and instead were imposing payments on the local ratepayers. But in a practical sense there is no way in which these sums could be recovered from the councillors because we all know that they could not possibly afford to pay these substantial surcharges.The Minister must be aware that the Clydebank councillors incurred two fines for contempt of court, one of —5,000 and one of —20,000. Surely he is not suggesting that in passing on those sums to the ratepayers those councillors are not being indemnified. Is he suggesting that if Mr. Stonehouse cannot pay his debts he should be indemnified?
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to a right hon. Member of this House in that fashion.
The hon. learned Gentle-man is wrong in his comments about the legal situation. It was not the Clydebank councillors who were fined. It was the town council which was fined as a corporation by the Scottish courts. All that has happened is the issue of an interim report, but no penalties have been imposed on individual councillors and there is no question of retrospection.
I am sorry to put a lawyer right on these legal matters, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who also is a lawyer, went even more astray on the legal point. He spoke of criminal actions. There are no criminal actions involved here. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the councillors should be sent to gaol. I gather that some hon. Members say they should. But there is no provision in the 1947 Act, never mind the 1963 Act, to bring about that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that he does not know the first thing about the existing situation, never mind anything else.Is the Minister not aware that two offences of contempt of court are quasi-criminal offences?
Division No. 194.]
| AYES
| [11.54 p.m.
|
| Anderson, Donald | Carmichael, Neil | Dunnett, Jack |
| Archer, Peter | Carter-Jones, Lewis | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Cartwright, John | Eadie, Alex |
| Ashley, Jack | Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Edge, Geoff |
| Ashton, Joe | Clemitson, Ivor | Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen | Ennals, David |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Corbett, Robin | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Evans, John (Newton) |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Ewing, Harry (Stirling) |
| Bates, Alf | Crawshaw, Richard | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. |
| Bean, R. E. | Cronin, John | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Cryer, Bob | Flannery, Martin |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Ford, Ben |
| Bishop, E. S. | Davidson, Arthur | Forrester, John |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) |
| Booth, Albert | Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Freeson, Reginald |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
| Bradley, Tom | Deakins, Eric | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Gilbert, Dr. John |
| Broughton, Sir Alfred | de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Ginsburg, David |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Delargy, Hugh | Golding, John |
| Buchan, Norman | Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Gould, Bryan |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Dempsey, James | Graham, Ted |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Doig, Peter | Grant, John (Islington C) |
| Campbell, Ian | Dormand, J. D. | Grocott, Bruce |
| Canavan, Dennis | Duffy, A. E. P. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
The fine was not imposed on individual councillors but on the town council. There has been no offence, and for that matter there has been nothing so far in regard to the councillors of Clydebank, except an interim auditor's report. There is no question of any criminal action. We are dealing with the practicalities of the situation.
By Clause 19 we are reproducing in the existing situation almost exactly the same position as will be the law of the land in Scotland under the 1973 Act from 15th May 1975. That is the effect of what we are doing in the clause, and we are taking this action because we believe that the existing law is inadequate to deal with the present situation. The Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972, which is now set aside and repealed, produced an extremely difficult situation for central Government and councillors alike. It was a disgraceful episode in public life in Scotland. The sooner we set it all aside and start afresh and re-establish the relationship of mutual confidence and trust between central Government and local councillors, the better.Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 225.
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) |
| Hardy, Peter | McNamara, Kevin | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Harper, Joseph | Madden, Max | Sillars, James |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Mahon, Simon | Silverman, Julius |
| Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Marquand, David | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hatton, Frank | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Small, William |
| Hayman, Mrs Helene | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Meacher, Michael | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Hooley, Frank | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Stallard, A. W. |
| Horam, John | Mikardo, Ian | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) |
| Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Millan, Bruce | Stoddart, David |
| Huckfield, Les | Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) | Stott, Roger |
| Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Mitchell, R. C. (Sotton, Itchen) | Strang, Gavin |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Hunter, Adam | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Newens, Stanley | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Noble, Mike | Thompson, George |
| Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Oakes, Gordon | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Jeger, Mrs Lena | Ogden, Eric | Tierney, Sydney |
| Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | O'Halloran, Michael | Tinn, James |
| John, Brynmor | O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian | Tomlinson, John |
| Johnson, James (Hull West) | Orbach, Maurice | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Ovenden, John | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Owen, Dr David | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Palmer, Arthur | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Parry, Robert | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Judd, Frank | Perry, Ernest | Ward, Michael |
| Kaufman, Gerald | Phipps, Dr Colin | Watkins, David |
| Kelley, Richard | Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Watkinson, John |
| Kerr, Russell | Price, William (Rugby) | Watt, Hamish |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Radice, Giles | Weetch, Ken |
| Kinnock, Neil | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) | Weitzman, David |
| Lambie, David | Reid, George | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Lamborn, Harry | Richardson, Miss Jo | White, James (Pollok) |
| Lamond, James | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Whitlock, William |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Lee, John | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Roderick, Caerwyn | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Lipton, Marcus | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Litterick, Tom | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Lomas, Kenneth | Rooker, J. W. | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Loyden, Eddie | Rose, Paul B. | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Luard, Evan | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Rowlands, Ted | Woodall, Alec |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Ryman, John | Woof, Robert |
| McElhone, Frank | Sandelson, Neville | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| MacFarquhar, Roderick | Sedgemore, Brian | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Selby, Harry | |
| Mackenzie, Gregor | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | Miss Betty Boothroyd and |
| Maclennan, Robert | Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Mr. Laurie Pavitt. |
NOES
| ||
| Adley, Robert | Buck, Antony | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Budgen, Nick | Fairgrieve, Russell |
| Alison, Michael | Bulmer, Esmond | Finsberg, Geoffrey |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Burden, F. A. | Fisher, Sir Nigel |
| Arnold, Tom | Carlisle, Mark | Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Carr, Rt Hon Robert | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Awdry, Daniel | Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) |
| Baker, Kenneth | Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Fox, Marcus |
| Banks, Robert | Clark, William (Croydon S) | Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) |
| Beith. A. J. | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Freud, Clement |
| Bell, Ronald | Clegg, Walter | Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Cockcroft, John | Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) |
| Benyon, W. | Cope, John | Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Cormack, Patrick | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Biffen, John | Costain, A. P. | Godber, Rt Hon Joseph |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Crouch, David | Goodhart, Philip |
| Blaker, Peter | Crowder, F. P. | Goodhew, Victor |
| Body, Richard | Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | Gorst, John |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Drayson, Burnaby | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Gray, Hamish |
| Brittan, Leon | Durant, Tony | Griffiths, Eldon |
| Brotherton, Michael | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Grist, Ian |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Emery, Peter | Grylls, Michael |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Eyre, Reginald | Hall, Sir John |
| Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Rossl, Hugh (HOrnsey) |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Madel, David | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Royle, Sir Anthony |
| Hannam, John | Marten, Neil | Sainsbury, Tim |
| Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss | Mates, Michael | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Hastings, Stephen | Mather, Carol | Scott, Nicholas |
| Havers, Sir Michael | Maude, Angus | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Hawkins, Paul | Mawby, Ray | Shepherd, Colin |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Mayhew, Patrick | Shersby, Michael |
| Heseltine, Michael | Meyer, Slr Anthony | Silvester, Fred |
| Hicks, Robert | Mills, Peter | Sims, Roger |
| Higgins, Terence L. | Miscampbell, Norman | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Holland, Philip | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Hordern, Peter | Monro, Hector | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Montgomery, Fergus | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Speed, Keith |
| Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Morgan, Geraint | Spence, John |
| Hurd, Douglas | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Sproat, Iain |
| Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Stainton, Keith |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd) | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Jessel, Toby | Neave, Airey | Stanley, John |
| Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Nelson, Anthony | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Neubert, Michael | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Jopling, Michael | Newton, Tony | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Nott, John | Stokes, John |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Onslow, Cranley | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Kimball, Marcus | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Tapsell, Peter |
| King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Pardoe, John | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Kitson, Sir Timothy | Parkinson, Cecil | Tebbit, Norman |
| Knight, Mrs Jill | Pattie, Geoffrey | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Knox, David | Percival, Ian | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| Lamont, Norman | Peyton, Rt Hon John | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Lane, David | Pink, R. Bonner | Trotter, Neville |
| Latham, Michael (Melton) | Prior, Rt Hon James | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Raison, Timothy | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Lawson, Nigel | Rathbone, Tim | Wakehant, John |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Viggers, Peter |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek |
| Lloyd, Ian | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Wells, John |
| Loveridge, John | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Luce, Richard | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| McCrindle, Robert | Ridsdale, Julian | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Rifkind, Malcolm | Younger, Hon George |
| MacGregor, John | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Mr. Adam Butler and |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Mr. Michael Roberts. |
Question accordingly agreed to.
New Clause A
Allowances For Members Of Children's Panels And Children's Panel Advisory Committees
Lords Amendment: No. 21, after Clause 32, in page 28, line 2, at end insert new Clause A—
".In Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (children's panels), for paragraph 8 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"8.—(1) A local authority may pay—(a) to a member or possible member of the children's panel in respect of his attendance at a children's hearing or at training arranged under paragraph 6 or 7 of this Schedule; (b) to a member of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee, who is not also a member of a body to which sections 45 and 46 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 apply, in respect of his attendance at a meeting of the Committee; (c) to a member or possible member of the children's panel or to such a member of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee as aforesaid in respect of the doing by him of anything approved by the authority or anything of a class so approved, for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of the functions of the panel or Committee, as the case may be; allowances, in the nature of those payable under sections 45(4) and 46(1) of the said Act of 1973, being payments of such reasonable amounts as they may determine in any particular case or class of case and not exceeding the amounts prescribed under the said section 45(4) and specified under the said section 46(1) for the corresponding allowances under those provisions.
(2) A local authority may pay to a member of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee who is also a member of a body to which sections 45 and 46 of the said Act of 1973 apply—(a) in respect of his attendance at a meeting of the Committee; (b) in respect of the doing by him of anything approved by the authority, or anything of a class so approved, for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of the functions of the Committee; allowances, in the nature of those payable under the said section 45 and subsection (1) of the said section 46, being payments of such reasonable amounts as they may determine in any particular case or class of case and not exceeding the amounts prescribed under the said section 45 and specified under subsection (1) of the said section 46 for the corresponding allowances under those provisions."."
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I call attention to the fact that Privilege is involved in this amendment.
This amendment inserts a new clause dealing with the allowances for members of children's panels and children's panel advisory committees. It provides that local authorities may pay councillors who are members of children's panel advisory committees the same allowances as they would receive for "approved duties" under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. They may pay other members financial loss, travelling and subsistence allowances at the same rates as are paid under the provisions of the 1973 Act.
The amendment also provides that local authorities may pay all members and possible members of children's panels financial loss, travelling and subsistence allowances at the same rates as are paid under the 1973 Act. Basically, the amendment continues the present arrangements concerning non-councillor members of children's panel advisory committees and members and possible members of children's panels. Its main purpose is to enable local authorities to pay to councillor members of children's panel advisory committees the same attendance allowances as are payable under the 1973 Act.Is it proposed that the cost of these payments, which seem reasonable in themselves, will be met out of the funds available to the local authorities or by central Government grant? In other words, will this be an additional burden on local authority expenditure?
It will not be an additional burden, because it continues exist- ing arrangements. These payments are made, like all other payments in relation to social work—so far as I recall—by the local authorities. They are then subject to the normal rate support grant provisions.
One simple question arises here, as it does on Amendment No. 45, dealing with school councils. It seems that there are to be two different systems of payment for members of children's panels and members of advisory committees. Will this mean that some members of panels will be getting £10 a day while others are only to be recompensed for loss of earnings? Will there be a difference in the tax system? This seems unusual. Would it not be better to have a standard rate for them all? Will there be a big difference, and why should there be any difference at all?
Councillors are not involved in the panels, as such, but only in the advisory committees. The allowance at the moment is net, because the attendance allowance of £10 for councillors is subject to tax at the standard rate—deductible before payment is made. The net payment is the same as the financial loss allowance payable to non-councillors, so the effect is basically the same. It cannot be done under the same provisions, because the attendance allowances apply only to councillors and not to other people. This is a little untidy but it is inevitable, given the terms of the 1963 Act.
Question put and agreed to. [ Special Entry.]
New Clause B
Transference Of Social Workers Of Health Boards To Local Authority Employment
Lords Amendment: No. 22, after Clause 32, insert new Clause B:
".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the transfer to the employment of local authorities of persons of descriptions specified in the order who are for the time being employed in social work by Health Boards; and the order may include provision(a) for transfers in pursuance of the order to be made on such days as may be determined by or under the order; and (b) as to the manner of determining whether an individual is a person liable to be transferred by virtue of this subsection and which authority is the authority to whose employment such a person is to be transferred.
(2) A person transferred by virtue of subsection (1) above to the employment of a local authority shall not be required in the course of that employment to perform duties otherwise than at or in connection with a hospital or other health service establishment unless he has consented to perform such duties.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State by order to make provision for securing, in the case of a person transferred to the employment of a local authority by virtue of subsection (1) above—
(4) A statutory instrument containing any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of either House of Parliament."
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The need for this provision arises from the Government's decision that social work in hospitals and other health service establishments should come under the administrative control of local authorities at the same time as local government reorganisation. Social work services in hospitals are at present provided by the health boards independently of the main social work provision by the local authorities. This change will integrate hospital and local authority social work services. The change has been discussed with all the parties concerned and the clause simply provides for the necessary transfer of the social workers concerned, with all the protections involved. We thought at first that the clause would be unnecessary, that the change could be made without legislative provision, but we are now advised otherwise.When the Minister was dealing with health matters, I was in correspondence with him on this matter. I should declare an interest, since my wife is a medical social worker and could be affected by the new clause.
The question which concerns medical social workers is that, despite the provision in subsection (2), because of the acute shortage of social workers on the local authority side, the hospitals, by various means, may be denuded of the necessary staff for medical social work. 12.15 a.m. This is a real fear. The Minister of State may say that subsection (2) is a protection, but normal means of promotion may result in social workers being taken from hospitals to local authorities where there is a desperate shortage of staff. It would relieve the social workers if the Minister could give an assurance that the staff complement of medical social workers will still be the responsibility of the health board or the hospital authority. I appreciate that where there are shortages it may not be possible for a hospital to have a full complement, but it should be the job of the health board to say how many social workers are needed. At present, if there is not a full staff, a hospital authority says "Our requirement is five or six". In the same way, local authorities determine their complements, even if they may not be fully staffed and have a large percentage of unskilled or untrained staff. It would be a safeguard if the Minister gave an indication that the assessment of staff required would be given to the health authority or hospital board, because if there were a substantial shortage, at least it could be clearly demonstrated. This question has caused concern and I hope that the Minister will give an assurance.I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) said about the need for a further assurance. Having been involved in this problem some time ago, I like him, was of the opinion that it could be done administratively and not in permanent legislation such as this.
It seemed to me at the time that the key point was that social workers who had a particular bent for hospital work and wished to remain in hospitals would be allowed to continue in them for the rest of their employment in the health service. Under subsection (3) (b) (i) of the clause, it would seem that this is so, but the wording "so long as he"—or, presumably, she—and so on, seems a little vaguer than I would have liked. Presumably there is work in the hospitals which could be deemed to be reasonably comparable, but those in certain social work departments would like the Minister to spell out firmly tonight that those working in hospitals today on medical social work will be allowed to retain their work in hospital so long as they are employed by the health board."is employed in duties reasonably comparable to the duties in which immediately before the transfer he was engaged".
The arrangements under the clause were the subject of detailed discussion with the various interests involved, because the change is a substantial one and the intention of the Secretary of State to make the change was intimated to the various bodies concerned in October 1974. It is, therefore, not a matter which is being decided only now, although it is appearing in the Bill only now.
In this clause we have tried to repeat the assurances which have been given elsewhere on a number of matters and which, in a matter of this kind, inevitably cause a certain amount of concern. In the main matter raised this evening, subsection (2) is explicit. It says that anyone transferredOne could not put the provision in clearer terms than that. It protects existing staff. Nevertheless, if the full benefits of the transfer are ultimately to be obtained, there must be the closest liaison—and the justification for the change is the necessity to obtain the closest liaison—between social workers employed in the health environment and those employed in the normal local authority environment. Therefore, we are not building in here, or in the arrangements generally, a permanent inflexibility. But there can be no compulsion. Subsection (2) makes that clear. I should have to look in detail into the question of establishments before being categoric about it, because this is not an area for which I have day-to-day ministerial responsibility—although I did have such responsibility some years ago. It would not be right to allow the new area health board to maintain the right to determine the establishment. One could not say that that should be an unqualified right. In these matters the local authority will have the ultimate word, but I have no doubt that the arrangements provide that in determining the location of social workers in the health service establishment or hospitals the local authority will work in the closest consultation with the area health board. One cannot express the relationship in terms of the area health board's being able to determine the complement of its own free will. It is ultimately a local authority responsibility. If hon. Members wish to pursue detailed points about the question of transfer, perhaps they will write to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who deals with these matters. No doubt he will try to answer them. This is a clause which, in the circumstances in which we have decided the transfer should be made, contains the necessary protection. I hope, therefore, that it will be welcomed by the House."to the employment of a local authority shall not be required in the course of that employment to perform duties otherwise than at or in connection with a hospital or other health service establishment unless he has consented to perform such duties".
I am grateful to the Minister for assuring us that he will look further into the point I raised, because it is a more serious issue than appears at first sight. In the hospitals many members of the medical staff regard the social workers as very much part of the medical team. They take part in case conferences. It would be unfortunate if the hospitals did not have an equal say in the staff complement. I hope that the Minister and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will look into this matter in detail, because problems could arise if there were not an amicable arrangement set out in a paper which the health board and the local authority fully understood.
Question put and agreed to. [ Special entry.]
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed
Clause 35
General Interpretation
Lords Amendment: No. 25, in page 29, line 2, leave out
"and the Acts amending that Act"
and insert
"the Acts amending that Act, any other Act relating to valuation".
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment.I should hate to miss the opportunity of raising a question about the Valuation Acts which are being encompassed in this amendment.
On Report the Minister gave an assurance to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and myself that an amendment which dealt with the question of correction of a valuation roll in instances where the error had been committed by the appellant who had wrongfully filled in the annual return would be considered in another place. I have received no detailed statement from the Minister about the matter, although I understand that a letter will be coming to me and possibly to the hon. Member for Dundee, West. I should be grateful if the Minister could make a brief statement explaining why it did not prove possible to consider the amendment referred to.I wrote to the hon. Gentleman about one or two other matters that he raised on Report, and I think that I was able to meet his points on them. I am sorry if I owe him an extra letter. I shall let him have it tomorrow.
I understand that the question concerned carrying any correction made to one valuation through to similar valuations. The hon. Gentleman has talked in terms of corrections tonight, but I thought that it was a correction following an appeal—It is the circumstances where, after the register has been made upon a revaluation, it is discovered that a valuation was wrongfully established, because the assessor had relied on wrong information given to him by the householder concerned, and it is not possible to correct the wrong valuation until the next revaluation period.
I am not sure that I have the point right. I had thought that one was dealing with something that had happened on appeal, and my general answer would have been that Clause 2 (3) would have dealt with that. I should have thought that the kind of matter the hon. Gentleman describes could have been dealt with by Clause 2(1), but obviously he is not convinced that it could, even with the amendments we have made to the subsection tonight.
I shall look into the matter. I apologise for the hon. Gentleman's not having had a letter about it, and hope to make amends by saying that he will have one tomorow.Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36
Minor And Consequential Amendments And Repeals
Lords Amendment: No. 26, in page 29, line 12, after "Act" insert
"and of the Valuation Acts and of any enactment having effect by virtue of those Acts consequential on section 18 of this Act,"
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 36, in Schedule 6, in page 49, line 15, at end insert—
"1A. Any reference in the Valuation Acts or in any enactment having effect by virtue of those Acts to 'year', however expressed, shall be construed as respects the year 1975–76 as a reference to a period commencing on 16th May 1975 and ending on 31st March 1976 and as respects any later year as a period of twelve months ending with 31st March."
On a point of order. It may be helpful if I say that the official Opposition fully agree with all the remaining Lords Amendments, and will be glad if they can be taken together.
The shadow Opposition also have no further points to raise.
As they are all Government amendments, I do not object to any of them, either.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37
Short Title, Commencement, Construcstruction, Savings And Extent
12.30 a.m.
Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 29, line 37, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
"(6) This Act, except paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 and except in so far as it relates to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, extends to Scotland only."
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
With this we are to discuss the following Lords Amendments:
Schedule 4
No. 33, in Schedule 4, page 48, leave out from beginning of line 7 to "there" in line 10 and insert:
" Disqualification for membership of the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly
6. In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975."
No. 50, in Schedule 6, page 57, line 30, at end insert:
"The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 ( c.)
55. In Part III of Schedule 1, in the entry relating to local government officers the words from "County clerk or" to the end of the entry shall cease to have effect.
56. In Part IV of Schedule 1, in the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lieutenant for a county in Great Britain for the words "Great Britain" there shall be substituted the words "England and Wales", and after that entry there shall be inserted the following entries:
| Her Majesty's lord-lieutenat or lieu-tenat for a region in Scotland. | Any constituency comprising the whole or part of such part of the region as may be determined by Order in Council made by Her Majesty in which the Lord-lieutenant holds office or in which the lord-lieutenant or lieu-tenant discharges his functions. |
| Her Majesty's lord-lieutenant or lieu-tenant for an islands area in Scotland. | Any constituency comprising the whole or part of the islands area for which the lord-lieutenant or lieutenant is appointed or for which the lord-lieutenant holds office. |
| Her Majesty's lord-lieutenant or lieu-tenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh or Glasgow. | Any constituency comprising the whole or part of the district in which the lord-lieutenant holds office or for which the lieutenant is appointed. |
| "1975 c. | The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. | In Part III of Schedule 1, in the entry relating to local government officers the words from "County clerk or" to the end of the entry. |
| 1975 c. | The Northern Ireland Assembly Dis-qualification Act 1975. | In Part III of Schedule 1, in the entry relating to local government officers the words from "County clerk or "to the end of the entry." |
The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c.)
57. In Part III of Schedule 1, in the entry relating to local government officers the words from "County clerk or" to the end of the entry shall cease to have effect."
No. 59, in Schedule 7, page 60, line 27, at end insert:
May I seek clarification on Lords Amendment No. 50? The amendment has just been tacked on to Schedule 6 and I should like the Minister to explain what, exactly, it entails in relation to the lord-lieutenants of the regions of Scotland. I appreciate the position of lord-lieutenants of the cities and the island areas. Has this Bill made any difference, however, to the existing situation in relation to the present lord-lieutenants designated by counties, and, if not, why was the amendment included?
The amendment does not make any difference, and I rather suspect that it is connected with the 1973 Act. I am not clear why we are introducing it at this very late stage in the Bill, because it continues the existing position but expresses the matter in terms of the new local authority areas. The hon. Member need not worry about the position of the lord-lieutenants being altered or prejudiced by anything we are doing here. The amendment removes the disqualification from serving as MPs of clerks and depute clerks of a county, district or burgh. I am informed that such officers will cease to exist from 16th May. Technically, therefore, if the Bill receives the Royal Assent next week and there is a by-election before 16th May a county clerk can stand for election.
There is no other point in the amendment, but the other place has put it in and I have simply to move it here.Question put and agreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [several with Special Entry and one with Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
I beg to move, That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill; that it do consist of Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Mr. James Hamilton, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Teddy Taylor and Mr. Bruce Millan; that three be the quorum; and that they do withdraw immediately.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to inquire whether it is in order for the House to appoint a committee which is not representative of the representation of the Scottish National Party in this House. An undertaking had been given by the Minister that consideration might be given to representation of the Scottish National Party on such matters.
May I say that I understand that the position is that this matter is still being looked at. There are, I understand, some technical difficulties. I am not sure what they might be, but the matter has not been forgotten.
Question put and agreed to.
To withdraw immediately.
Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments to be reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Dormand.]
Employment (North Humberside)
12.36 a.m.
Although I am happy to eventually have obtained this Adjournment debate after balloting unsuccessfully for many weeks, it is nevertheless not a happy topic. The subject I raise is the immediate, urgent and desperate unemployment situation on North Humberside and in the City of Hull in particular.
This concerns the right to work. This is a matter of concern, not only to our constituents, our unions and our employers, but to many Members of this House, particularly those of my hon. Friends who are sponsored by trade unions such as the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which has written to my hon. Friends and myself about this problem. It is interesting to note that although my hon. Friends representing the area are present, no Conservative Member representing the same travel-to-work area is in the Chamber. Unemployment on North Humberside has consistently been over the national average over the past decade, in good times as well as bad. Now it is approaching the level of some development areas and has passed the levels of some other development areas. The total, excluding students, is 11,414, of which seven short of 10,000 are men—an increase of 325 over the previous month and of 3,114 over the previous year. For women the number is 1,421, an increase of 640 over the previous year. In Hull the incease in male unemployment over the previous year has been 2,384, making a total of 8,238 males while for women the increase has been from 464 to 1,105. That gives a percentage increase of 9 per cent. for men and 2·8 per cent. for women——a total combined rate of 6·7 per cent. In the same period in Hull the number of unfilled vacancies has fallen from 1,838 to 776 which means that roughly 15 people are chasing one job. This is a bad picture, even if students are excluded from the percentage and if we make allowance for people changing jobs and those registered as unemployed merely to obtain pensions and social security rights. We have suffered a number of damaging blows in Hull and Humberside over the past few months and there may be worse to come. Thorn Electrical Industries in my constituency closed its factory, with the loss of 300 jobs. Imperial Typewriters, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was scandalously treated by its multinational owners, Litton Industries, who sought to use its Common Market factories to precipitate on to the industrial scrap heap 14,000 people employed at its factory. Ideal Standard—the biggest employer in my constituency—is on short time because of the cutback in home improvement loans and the failure of European orders. Armstrongs are on short time because of the recession in the car industry. The aircraft industry at Brough is concerned for its future and the fate of the HS 146. The fishing industry is in doubt over its future because of the Conference on the Law of the Sea and confusion over Common Market fishing policy. Finally the Chancellor has slapped 25 per cent. VAT on one of the most labour-intensive industries in our area—the caravan industry, which had itself been subject to sufficient blows from outside before. The touring caravan itself has a straight 25 per cent. and the contents of many other caravans which will not have to bear the straight duty have been made subject to the general VAT rate. The effect of this tax on unemployment in our region could be most serious. I have received a letter from a director of a large caravan company—Astral Caravan Company Limited of Hull—which has received the Queen's Award for Exports. This is what the export director writes:"In my opinion the effects of the budget upon the Caravan Industry are likely to be nothing short of disastrous. Since November 1973 when the oil crisis really started to bite, we have had a succession of misfortunes. The price of petrol had a very natural direct influence upon the purchasing power of t he caravan owner and of course it was a main factor in the inflationary spiral which also has reduced the purchasing power and taken the competitive edge off our exports. Only this very morning 1 have received a letter from our Dutch manager showing how vulnerable is our position in relation to our continental competitors.
Previous Chancellors excluded our young and growing Industry from any effect of Purchase Tax. This was something which we always appreciated as it enabled us to keep a healthy Home Market as a spring-board to our export plans. Our Industry has demonstrated the wisdom of such a policy by its export achievement.
Under the present budget Mr. Healey is imposing on a Touring Caravan for the humble working man the same penal rate of tax as an asset-stripper would have to pay when buying a fur coat or expensive jewellery for his mistress. There is no sense in this whatsoever and it is going to stop many families from enjoying a simple and laudable pursuit at a time when their spending power is so limited. Even prior to this budget the Caravan Industry was suffering from the effects of inflation and over-production. The Continental competitors are moving in as fast as they can but with sterling being so weak, we will fight as hard as we can to bring foreign currency back to this country. We would have done this whether or not the Chancellor had imposed a prohibitive rate of V.A.T. on touring caravans in the home market, but I must say that if there is not to be large scale unemployment in this Company and in the Caravan Industry, some reduction of the 25 per cent. rate is both urgent and imperative.
Even making allowances for the usual scare-mongering of manufacturers when their goods are made subject to tax, this is a serious position. Finally, there is the fact that as a result of slum clearance and housing policies about 750 to 1,000 small businesses, excluding shops, may lose their premises. However, the picture is not wholly black. Reckitt and Colman is continuing to expand and some smaller industries are continuing with their plans, despite the economic difficulties, and have seized the opportunities that North Sea oil development has offered them and followed the lead given them by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The completion of the M62 in the next 18 months or so and the later completion of the Humber Bridge will add to the transport infrastructure of the area and we have good educational facilities. What, then, can be done about the situation? Here may I pay tribute to the work of the Industrial Development Committee and its Chairman, Councillor Louis Pearlman, and its Director, Ian Holden, for the work they have done in difficult times in seeking to attract more jobs to Hull and to maintain employment. They have been of considerable help to me in preparing for this debate and in suggesting positive remedies to meet both the short-term and long-term problems. The remedies in the short term are, first, to extend building availability through EIEC to local expanding industries; and, secondly, to review and revitalise the community industrial scheme, particularly for school leavers. This scheme does valuable work in my constituency, but I should like the Minister to ask local industrialists why they have not taken up their full quota. Thirdly, special training programme for school leavers, either in conjunction with local industry or through Government training centres. It would obviously be better to pay local industry to employ young people than to pay unemployment benefit. Fourthly, the reintroduction of a qualifying Eyesore programme. This is an important step. Fifthly, a review of intermediate area status for a limited period to get over the current crisis, particularly by introducing cash grants for investment in plant and machinery, say, up to 1978, so that in particular we could benefit from the employment that North Sea oil is bringing, which the North-East and Scotland has been hogging to itself. Sixthly, special tax concessions for companies taking on school leavers, that is, a possible relief from corporation tax or an equivalent amount in some taxation field. Obviously this will affect the Chancellor and his taxation policies, but it is important. I come now to the medium- and long-term measures. Some of them will be expansions of the short-term measures, but in particular one can add, first, an expansion of the building programme by EIEC to allow for expanding local industry under Part III of the Industry Act. I understand that this matter is at present under consideration in the Department. Secondly, designation of local authority relocation provision in terms of related costs of roads, sewers and buildings, as key sector expenditure rather than LDS expenditure, where such schemes are proven to arise from housing clearance policies. I understand that this matter has been taken up by Hull City Corporation with the Department of Environment and is estimated to involve between 750 and 1,000 small businesses, excluding shops. Thirdly, the establishment in Hull of a Government Office or nationalised industry headquarters operation, for example, BNOC or National Carriers. Hull is a city that has been almost totally ignored from this point of view, despite its very real unemployment problem and its proven potential to be able to absorb a major new incoming office employers. Finally, a scheme for setting up an extension to the selective assistance provisions of the Industry Act, to establish a merchant banking and company flotation operation to deal with the problems of finance and the expansion of small businesses. My Director of Industrial Development said to me in a note he sent me:It is a sign of the difficulties through which we have been passing that we have had to close down two of our three factories—Wyton and Clough Road—and indeed in the third factory—Lorraine Street—we have had to curtail our production. Further cuts on our present labour force within the only remaining factory must depend on the damage done by the V.A.T. rate of 25 per cent. on home market caravans. We have already cut our production in May/June following the Chancellor's measures by about £100,000 monthly.'
This is something that we must look at. It is something that the Chancellor considered in his last-but-one Budget. The situation in North Humberside is very serious, and if we are not careful it could well be disastrous for the people who live and seek to work there."In looking at the medium- and long-term investment stimulation and job producing policies, one cannot help thinking that a further extension of State interest into the industrial and commercial fields does bring to the Government a far wider responsibility to find ways to encourage investment than hitherto. Because of this I do not think that sufficient thought has been given to the psychology and economic triggers for industrial expansion. If the State is going to dominate in the way proposed, then clearly it must think about these triggers and do something to introduce effective policies. Undoubtedly in the medium term, however, before such policies can perhaps be thought about and put into force, some action to give substantial tax relief to companies investing more than a certain percentage of their profits into expansion could be a very useful and relatively quick acting stimulus."
12.49 a.m.
I intervene for a few minutes by courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) to support and confirm what has been said by him. I would not wish the Minister to think that we are too despondent in Central Hull, because although, overall, unemployment has increased substantially—there is no doubt about it—the district manager says that unemployment generally has increased only marginally, if students seeking vacational employment are excluded. There is no doubt of the impact on Hull, and there is a possibility of vessels being laid up in the dock. That will mean that 800 or 900 men could lose their jobs.
The shop stewards at Hawker-Siddeley are very disappointed about the phasing out of jobs. It is important that we should get on with nationalisation and that the Government should make a decision about the HS 146 civilian bus and about the building and marketing of more Buccaneers. We must not be too despondent and sell ourselves short. Hull is not a depressed area. For example, five new firms may be coming to East Hull. We have an underlying vitality and potential on North Humberside, particularly in Hull, which could move quickly if the national situation moved. I am informed by the Chairman of the Development Committee that things are "jelling" well and that many inquiries are coming in from firms in other parts of Yorkshire, particularly Leeds. The general industrial scene is fairly buoyant, despite the knocks we have had lately. It appears that a good deal of modernisation and investment has taken place, but we have yet to see the results of that. There is an underlying resurgence in the city, the port is doing well, and we should give the dockers a pat on the back instead of throwing brickbats at them as we sometimes do. If the national economy picks up, my belief is that the city has a bright future and that we can do well.12.52 a.m.
Let me say straight away that I well understand, and sympathise with, the deep concern which my hon. Friends have expressed about the very worrying level of unemployment in their constituencies and in the rest of North Humberside. The rise in unemployment throughout the country, particularly in the last six months or so, is indeed disturbing, and the figures announced last week, even allowing for the numbers of students registering during the Easter vacation cannot fail to cause intense disquiet, especially to a Labour Government.
The position in Humberside is in part a reflection of national and international conditions, but it has been exacerbated by the abrupt closure of the Imperial Typewriter factory and of Thorn Electrical Industries which affect the jobs of more than 1,600 people. I liked the expression "the right to work" used by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Representing, as I do, a Clydeside constituency, I well understand the expression. My hon. Friends have raised this matter and I know they have been very active in seeking to help those of their constituents who have been affected by the closures at Imperial Typewriters and Thorn Electrical. I shall return to this matter. I want to begin by looking at those elements in the situation which give cause for encouragement about the future. There is a risk that in our entirely understandable concern about present difficulties we may tend to paint too gloomy a picture. The facts are that Humberside has good reason to look ahead with optimism. The port of Hull is ideally placed to take advantage of the growth of trade between Britain and the countries of continental Europe. This is true irrespective of whether we remain members of the EEC. Hull is already benefiting from a rapid growth in traffic, and the major improvements in its road communications which are currently being pressed ahead will stimulate this growth all the more. In addition to its rail links, Humberside will soon have an almost unrivalled situation on the country's motorway network. The M62, linking the industrial heartlands of Lancashire and Yorkshire, will reach Humberside later this year. Further links with the M1 and the South will be provided by the M18 and M180, while the Humber Bridge is expected to be completed by 1977. These developments will greatly improve access to the Humberside ports, both from the rest of the region and from the other main industrial areas of the United Kingdom. I am well aware that all this will be of little comfort to the 12,000 and more people who are now unemployed in Hull. but I think it is significant that before the recent redundancies clouded the situation the city's director of industrial development was reported in The Times as saying that Hull was experiencing theThat high level of interest shown by industrialists was attributed to the excellence of the area's communications, a settled labour force, the policies of the local authority, and the prospect of Government assistance. That leads me on to two further points. First, on the local government side, there is a new situation, in that the whole of Humberside is now controlled by one county authority which can exploit the resources of the estuary in a fully coordinated manner. Secondly, there is the question of regional policy. As an intermediate area, Humberside qualifies for significant incentives to stimulate industrial expansion in the form of regional development grants for buildings, selective financial assistance under the 1972 Industry Act and Government factories. Since the beginning of the selective assistance scheme in 1972, 24 offers of financial assistance worth over half a million pounds have been made for projects in Hull which were expected to create some 1,500 jobs. The great bulk of these projects came from existing firms, which illustrates the vitality of local industry. Further applications are under consideration for projects which, if they went ahead, would provide a further 1,100 jobs. My Department's first advance factory in Hull was let in 1973 to a mainly male-employing company, and this is now being expanded with the prospect of further jobs being created. A second factory was completed in November and is now ready for occupation while two more are due to be started next month following the programme we announced in November. We aim, therefore, to help the building industry as well as the assisted areas. My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of further activity by the English Industrial Estates Corporation in the area, and I assure him that this will certainly be considered by my Department. Industrial development certificates have been approved in the last three years for projects expected to provide well over 6,000 jobs in the Hull and Goole areas. My hon. Friend also referred to the community industry scheme, which is sponsored by the Department of Employment. The scheme was established in North Humberside in June 1973. Until the end of last year it operated only in Hull and provided a maximum of 50 places. In December last year capacity was increased to 60 places to provide for recruitment from the additional areas of Cottingham and Hessle. I am told by the Department of Employment that it is doubtful whether the level and nature of youth unemployment in other areas of North Humberside would at present justify the establishment of new community industry schemes, but I shall draw the attention of the Department of Employment to my hon. Friend's comments tonight. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the possibility of the Operation Eyesore scheme being renewed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently said, in commenting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission's report on environmental pollution, that there is regrettably no hope at present of the schem***s being reinstated. My hon. Friend will be aware that as the derelict land clearance programmes of the proposed Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies become effective, it is intended that the rate of reclamation in England should be increased and that new schemes in assisted areas and derelict land clearance areas will become eligible for 100 per cent. Exchequer grants. My hon. Friend also raised the question of development area status, and urged that we should consider upgrading North Humberside. I shall consider all his suggestions and, indeed, representations made by others, and I shall write to my hon. Friend. I stress that I have always regarded the conferring of special development area status as being a flexible matter which we may examine from time to time. My hon. Friend mentioned the caravan industry. I appreciate that the caravan building industry is of considerable importance to North Humberside. I accept that the industry has suffered from increases in oil charges, other price increases, and certainly from increases in VAT, which are unwelcome to some manufacturers. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of my hon. Friend's comments. However, I should point out that some of the best firms of North Humberside who make caravans are good exporters, and I have every confidence that the industry will respond to new challenges and markets."biggest resurgence of industrial development…this century".
The firm which I quoted received the Queen's Award for Industry in respect of its exports, and that firm has closed its factories.
I wish to deal with one or two other points which were made in the debate. My hon. Friend referred to the aircraft industry, and stressed its importance to the area. We propose soon to introduce a Bill to bring the industry into public ownership. We trust that legislation will go through all its stages this Session.
In regard to Hawker Siddeley's factory, it is recognised that the suspension of the HS146 project, together with the effect of some cuts, might cause the loss of some job opportunities. If that situation arises, it will be a matter for management and trade unions to deal with suitably at the appropriate time. Reference was made by my hon. Friend to his disappointment about the dispersal of Government offices. I understand his disappointment, but it is not possible to send dispersal work to all those areas which have offered to receive it and which, indeed, have put forward strong claims. We shall continue to look for further opportunities to disperse existing work. As far as possible, we shall locate in existing areas any new organisations which may be set up in future. I assure my hon. Friend that the claims of his constituency and nearby constituencies will be fully considered when we come to take further location decisions. Humberside has had more than its share of setbacks in recent months, but there is no reason why its problems cannot be overcome. We are pursuing a strong regional policy in support of the area, the full fruits of which will be hidden by the national recession which, in turn, is the product of a variety of economic circumstances, many of them outside Government control. We must all strive to overcome our severe national economic problems and, above all, the problem of inflation. Once our national problems are solved, Humberside's advantages will bring the area new prosperity.By leave of the House, I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The speech did not contain everything that I wanted to hear, but it contained something. I thank him for his courtesy at such a late hour.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past One o'clock.