House Of Commons
Monday 16 December 1991
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers To Questions
Social Security
Mortgage Guarantees
1.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he is doing to make mortgage guarantees by his Department acceptable to building societies and financial institutions.
The income support arrangements in respect of mortgage interest depend on individual circumstances and do not therefore constitute a generalised guarantee. From next month, changes are being made in the operation of the arrangements with the aim of making them more effective in preventing the build-up of arrears where income support is in payment.
Will the Secretary of State instruct his officials to see whether they can help constituents living in Hanover square in Bradford, who sold their homes for £1 to the British Heritage Housing Trust and are now angry that they cannot afford to buy their homes back at prices up to £51,000? The building societies are unwilling to accept guarantees given by the Department a nd by Bradford council because the former owners are pensioners, unemployed people and people en low incomes. Will he ensure that urgent action is taken to enable my constituents to buy back their homes and does he understand that any scheme that he introduces which relies on cosmetics and sticking plaster will not be adequate compensation for those many people who are fearful of losing their homes for ever?
I understand that there has been correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Bradford West office about a particular case which must be one of those to which he adverted in his supplementary question. It has been fully explained to the hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to give advance assurances about particular payments when the payment of income support depends on an adjudication officer's decision at the time the claim is made. I think that that is fairly well understood. Normally the arrangements work well in terms of the general letter which is given to building societies.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be any change to help with the repossession problem, it would be humane if it were made before Christmas? Does he further agree that it would help if housing benefit were paid directly to the lender and that that would make matters much easier for his Department in dealing with other benefits?
My hon. Friend may be aware that, in addition to the measure on which I commented in my original answer, there have been discussions with representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and some of my right hon. Friends to see whether further action can sensibly be taken to help with the repossession problem. Those discussions have been constructive and are continuing.
Will the Secretary of State recall for the House for how many years Opposition Members have been asking him to make mortgage payments direct to building societies? How many hundreds of thousands of people might now not be homeless if he had followed that advice? Why is it that sense enters the Government's head only when an election approaches?
That is an uncharacteristically overheated question from an hon. Member who, rightly, has a reputation for the balanced way in which he puts things. He well knows that arrangements have been in place for a long time enabling direct payments to be put into force when arrears occur. Those arrangements have undoubtedly prevented many repossessions. At the moment we are seeking to improve the working of those arrangements and that has been widely acknowledged and welcomed by the building societies.
When my right hon. Friend next meets the banks and building societies and rightly discusses with them the possibility of increasing direct payments of income support in respect of interest payments, will he emphasise that the most serious threat to the housing market and to the liquidity of the banks and building societies would be too many forced sales at prices that are too low? That in turn would lead to even more repossessions and he should tell the banks and building societies to be far more responsible about foreclosing on people's property.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders as a body, and its members, would recognise the points that my hon. Friend makes. It is on that basis that the constructive discussions to which I referred are taking place between many of the lenders and Government representatives.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there has been widespread concern for some time about the scale of repossessions? Did he say in answer to a supplementary question that only an improvement to the existing mechanism is being considered? Would I be right in thinking that that would exclude new and more fundamental ways of trying to deal with a problem that is spiralling wildly out of control?
The hon. Gentleman has drawn the wrong conclusion about an earlier answer, which I think was clear. We announced some time ago improved arrangements, as I believe them to be—we are already putting them in place and they will take effect from the end of the month—to make direct payments of income support where arrears occur. Another matter that is under discussion with the Council of Mortgage Lenders is whether a further extension of automatic direct payments could contribute to dealing with the problem.
In any future discussions, will my right hon. Friend include building societies, banks and insurance companies, as in many instances a mortgage may be backed by an insurance policy instead of the mortgage being arranged on a repayment basis?
Yes, the talks embrace representatives of those concerned with that part of the business.
Will the Secretary of State note that the Prime Minister, when a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security, set in train the tidal wave of repossessions when he pushed a regulation through the House, five years ago to this very day, which disqualified a newly unemployed person from receiving half his DSS mortgage interest repayments for the first 16 weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that on that occasion the Prime Minister said:
that is, for eviction—"There is no reason"—
Will the right hon. Gentleman at least apologise to the 100,000 families who have been evicted this year, especially as the Prime Minister's folly was in direct defiance of the building societies' advice at the time? Will he admit that the Prime Minister's action has caused untold misery? Will he repeal immediately the iniquitous Major disqualification rule?"and it will not happen."—[Official Report, 16 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 1129.]
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the position. The arrangements to which he referred were put in place after discussions with the Building Societies Association, during which it made it clear that a mortgagor would not repossess on the basis that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, as well as on the basis that where interest was rolled up in cases in which more than 16 weeks were involved, the Department would meet the additional interest charged on the extra payments arising. Those were balanced arrangements and in my view they have worked well. In reasonably expressing concern about repossessions, the hon. Gentleman should at least do so on a fair and straightforward basis.
Child Benefit
2.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families will gain from the three upratings of child benefit that will occur in the 12 months to April 1992.
The answer is 6·8 million families.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that 40 per cent. of people who gained from the upratings would not receive a single penny—perhaps I should say a single ecu—if they lived in socialist France?
I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that the structure of our child benefit scheme ensures that the first child receives benefit, unlike the position under the scheme in France. He may be interested to know that several European countries have extra conditions on entitlement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Perhaps it is, but at least it gets the facts out and that is something certainly lacking on the Opposition Benches.
Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have means tests. In Belgium, Italy and Portugal, there are links to insurance status. I hope that those facts impress the House.To the issue of mortgages and pensioners, we now add child benefit—another part of the Government's real social charter. Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of his record on child benefit? The Government are trying to make good what they put wrong during the previous 10 years, but second and subsequent children still receive £2·05 a week less in real terms than they would have received if the Government had maintained child benefit at 1987 levels. Millions of pounds have been taken from mothers and children. Is not the Minister thoroughly ashamed of himself?
I say very quietly to the hon. Gentleman that we need no lessons on that subject, given the record of the previous Labour Government, who reduced benefits to families by 7 per cent. in real terms whereas we have increased them by 29 per cent. During the period when child benefit was not uprated, we did not stop helping families; we gave £600 million in real terms to low-income families. In the 12 months to April 1992, child benefit will increase three times and other benefits will be uprated. That is a record of which we can be proud.
My hon. Friend deserves congratulations on the Government's child benefit record over the past couple of years. Does he agree that the policy of family support extends to family credit? Will he contrast the 300,000 people who are receiving family credit with the impact of a minimum wage policy, which would have a devastating effect on many families and, of course, on single people?
My hon. Friend adverts to an interesting statistical coincidence. Well in excess of 2 million successful claims have been made for family credit whereas, according to some estimates, a minimum wage would put 2 million people out of work.
Cumbernauld Office
3.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reorganisation of his Department at its Cumbernauld office; and if he will make a statement.
With the formation of the Benefits Agency, local offices were combined to create more effective management units. In the case of Cumbernauld, the former local offices at Glasgow Springburn and Cumbernauld were brought together.
Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of the great concern among the public and the caring agencies about the decision to move senior management from Cumbernauld to Springburn? Is she aware of the widespread belief that Cumbernauld as a community has lost out on important benefits such as community care grants and budgeting loans? Will the hon. Lady therefore again consider reorganisation in the office in my constituency and whether it would be more appropriate for senior management to be located in Cumbernauld, to look after the needs of the community of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth properly?
The people of Cumbernauld have no reason to fear that they are getting less of a service than they were getting before. None of the core facilities or the facilities directed towards the general public have been moved to Springburn; the finance and personnel section is the only one to have moved.
Community care grants and provision under the social fund are worked out on a district basis. Nevertheless, the particular needs of client groups are taken into account when working them out. Recently, there has been a substantial increase.Occupational Pensions
4.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners have an occupational pension (a) now and (b) in 1979.
The latest figures available show that, in 1988, 51 per cent. of pensioners received income from occupational pensions compared with 41 per cent. in 1979.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that such schemes give pensioners greater financial independence, but low inflation and low taxation are needed if they are to be totally effective and pensioners can get that only from a Conservative Government?
I very much agree with my hon. Friend and the history of what happened under the previous Labour Government bears that out.
Will the Secretary of State consider those pensioners who do not have occupational pensions or whose pensions are so low that their overall incomes are low? Bearing in mind the bitterly cold days last week, would not it be wise to trigger the cold weather payments? Why should so many pensioners be so desperately poor that they dare not keep their homes heated adequately because, understandably, they are frightened that they will be unable to pay their quarterly bills? Will the right hon. Gentleman today authorise cold weather payments, which, after all, amount to only £6 a week?
There are two points. First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, over the past three years we have directed about an extra one third of a billion pounds—including money that is to be paid additionally next April—to less well-off pensioners on income support for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Secondly, he will be aware that we have a much-improved scheme of cold weather payments in place this winter. Payments have already been triggered in a substantial number of areas and, thanks to the arrangements that we have made for automatic payment which were not in place last year, the first payments should be going out this week.
While welcoming the good news about the increased proportion of pensioners with occupational pensions, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that during the past 12 years the Government have fully met their pledge to protect state pensions from inflation and that during the past two years state pensions have risen by 15 per cent.?
My hon. Friend is right in both respects. Alongside that, on the firm base of the state retirement pension, we have directed additional help to less well-off pensioners in the way that I described.
Why is it that after three years of pension fund scandals stretching from Hanson to Maxwell, with dozens in between, the right hon. Gentleman still has not made any legislative proposals for reform of the pension fund law? Why is it that after three years he will still not legislate for an independent chairman, for 50 per cent. employee representation, for full and up-to-date disclosure of all relevant financial information, for prohibiting stock lending and for a proper statutory framework for trust law? Will he take on board the fact that if he continues to dither and procrastinate as he is now, the next pension fund crisis will be on his head?
Far from not legislating, we have passed a substantial amount of legislation on a number of occasions including, most recently, the Social Security Act 1990, under which early next month I shall introduce the further regulations on self-investment to which many references have been made. The self-investment regulations—we have had to take great care over the transitional provisions to avoid damaging firms and pension funds—are a good example of the need to act with proper consideration rather than to rush about with half-baked suggestions, as the hon. Gentleman so often does.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the past few years there has been a rapidly increasing number of pensioners, but that the value of occupational pension schemes and the real income from them has also increased rapidly?
Yes, they have and that is substantially because of the way in which the Government have restrained inflation much more effectively than did the previous Labour Government.
Social Fund
5.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to make any early changes in the operation of the social fund and in the availability of funds to local offices.
Since April we have made available additional funds of over £43 million to district office budgets for loans and grants. From today social fund officers will be using the completely revised guide which has been introduced in all district offices.
Does not the Minister recognise that, even with these additional funds, if the fund is the final back-up of a system for people in the most urgent need of one-off payments, there is still too much budget limitation at local offices, which have to pay more attention to the availability of funds than to the need of the person applying? Does he recognise that the repayment of a loan is still too much of a limiting factor in granting loans, which should be granted anyway to the people in most urgent need?
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say before that we are dealing at the margins of the social security system with those in exceptional circumstances who have exceptional needs. I believe that the social fund, managing a controlled budget with discretion at local level, is the right way to proceed, but, of course, we are looking forward to the reports from the social policy research unit at York and others in the not-too-distant future when there will be an opportunity to review the whole system.
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening carefully to the representations that I and many Conservative Members have made about the increase in the social fund, especially for the people in Skelmersdale of whom he took note when I made representations to him.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that among his priorities are people who find themselves homeless and without furniture or other items? Under the social fund and the additional money that he has made available, will they be given a high priority in the deliberations of local officers?As I think my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to make directions and to issue guidance on the social fund. Guidance is also given at local level. It is for the individual social fund officers to use their discretion on whether payments are made.
The Minister is incredibly complacent about the operation of the social fund, on which many thousands of people rely to make ends meet. Is he aware of the abysmally low success rate in many cities? Is he further aware that when a grant is applied for jointly with a loan, there are massive variations among district offices in those cities? In Manchester, for example, the success rate in Wythenshawe is 5·7 per cent., in Chorlton it is 8·7 per cent. and in Rusholme it is 13·6 per cent., despite all three offices having spent their full allowance, including the additional money from February and September this year? Will he urgently consider the amount of money in the social fund to ensure that people are treated equally under this abysmal system whenever they go to social fund offices throughout the year and regardless of which office they apply to?
I reject any concept of its being an abysmal system. In August this year, we provided substantial extra resources for the social fund because we recognised the pressures in offices. All offices received an increase of at least 10 per cent. and those under most pressure received up to 40 per cent. in additional resources. I challenge the hon. Gentleman's presumption about discretion. If there is discretion at local level, there will be variation between different offices when judgments are made by social fund officers. The combination of a fixed budget and the use of discretion is an appropriate way in which to meet exceptional needs.
Income Support
7.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the increase in the value of income support for a single pensioner aged over 80 years from next April.
There has been a widespread welcome for the uprating announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which provides for an additional £60 million above normal uprating for pensioners who are over 80 or disabled. That and the 7 per cent. uprating for income-related benefits, nearly 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index, underline our resolve to protect and raise the living standards of the less well-off people of our nation.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that because of the ravages of inflation, the average pension of 400 roubles in Moscow is now only enough to buy 1 kg of sausages? Does she agree that that is a dramatic contrast with the increase of one third in the real value of benefits since the previous Labour Government left office?
Perhaps an even more pertinent contrast, which my hon. Friend may like to consider, is the startling one between the fate of pensioners under the previous Labour Government and the well-being of pensioners under this Government. It is true that pensioners' average total incomes have grown by 34 per cent., whereas for the whole period of the previous Labour Government, they increased by only 3 per cent. The ravages of inflation under the Labour Government, if not of Moscow proportions, are a solemn warning about what would happen to pensioners in the unlikely event of Labour taking power again.
How many sausages can a British pensioner over the age of 80 buy, while keeping his or her house warm?
The retirement pension is regularly uprated in line with prices to enable pensioners to buy necessities. The rise in income-related benefits in line with the Rossi index, which was 3 per cent. more than the retail prices index, gives even greater buying capacity to pensioners who rely on state benefits.
Residential Homes
9.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have benefited from real increases in the income support limits for those in residential care and nursing homes over the last three years.
Over the past three years, there have been four increases in the income support limits for people in residential care and nursing homes—in April 1989, April 1990, August 1990 and April 1991. Further increases, well above inflation in most cases, are proposed from April 1992.
Some 265,000 income support recipients are expected to benefit from the increases.Those increases are most welcome, but can my hon. Friend assure me that elderly people no longer requiring medical treatment will not be discharged from NHS hospitals, where they pay nothing, into residential accommodation, where, despite those welcome increases, they will be required to contribute out of their savings until those savings are pretty well exhausted?
I can confirm that it is a requirement that, if the national health service believes that continuing health care is appropriate, it is obliged to provide such care, either in NHS premises or, if necessary, by contract with the private sector. It is not the case that savings have to dwindle to nothing: ordinary income support limits apply.
Does the Minister accept that, although many home owners provided a fine service, many others know that they have the Government over a barrel and push for excessive increases? Is she not rather ashamed—as a member of a Government who pride themselves on targeting—to come to the Dispatch Box and read to her hon. Friend a whole list of universal increases? When will the Government pay attention to the Select Committee on Social Security and go for targeted increases, thus saving taxpayers a great deal of money and ensuring that, at the end of the day, no one is evicted from private residential or nursing care facilities?
My concept of universal benefits and that of the hon. Gentleman differ somewhat. The increases are wholly geared to those on income support. For universal benefits, we must look to the slightly cracked proposals of the Labour party, including its proposals for the old-age pension and how it would not target benefits.
Pensioners (Central Heating)
10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioner households have central heating; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.
The latest figures available show that, in 1989, 70 per cent. of pensioner households had central heating, compared with 43 per cent. in 1979.
That dramatic increase is warmly to be welcomed, particularly in view of the very cold weather that we have been having. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that very satisfactory increase reflects the Government's success in ensuring that pensioners have benefited enormously from this country's rising standard of living over the past 12 years?
The figures that I gave in response to my hon. Friend's question about central heating are replicated by those for other consumer durables over the same period, and reflect a considerable increase in pensioner living standards under this considerable increase in pensioner living standards under this Government—an increase of some 34 per cent. from 1979 to 1988.
But surely the problem is how many pensioners can afford to use their central heating. Given his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) a few moments ago, can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many areas cold weather payments have been triggered? Is it just a few?
I cannot give the figures. Severe weather payments have been triggered in a number of areas during this period of exceptionally cold weather. In a sense, I am disappointed that the Meteorological Office was unable to trigger in advance on this occasion. The Met Office tells me that it wanted to study the matter with care, as this was the first such period of cold weather since the new system was introduced. It will be studying the pattern that has occurred this time, and hopes to be able to make improvements in future.
How many?
Order.
rose——
Order.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I did not want the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question that had been asked, from a sedentary position, but perhaps he intended to add to his reply to the supplementary asked by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse).
Since I have been asked, the answer is 25.
Given the huge increase in occupational pensions, and the fact that 75 per cent. of newly retired people now have savings, can my right hon. Friend confirm that, over the past 10 years, pensioners' average income has increased to no less than five times what it was under the Labour Government, when income from savings fell by 16 per cent.? Can he also——
Order. Not at this stage. One question, please.
The increase in pensioner incomes in each year of this Government's period of office has been greater than the increase over the whole period of the last Labour Government.
In the context of ensuring that pensioners can heat their houses, what meetings has the Minister had with other Departments following his meeting with me and the Cold Weather Credit Campaign earlier this year?
Obviously we are concerned with the campaigns of the Department of Energy and the Department of Health. We have regular meetings to ensure that the impact of cold weather on the old and vulnerable is as small as possible and that they, their neighbours and friends, and organisations that help them are as well advised as possible about meeting the needs of vulnerable groups.
rose——
rose——
I think that I should call the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) in terms of balance.
The new proposals for discovering whether elderly people require residential or nursing care will be most welcome. Has my right hon. Friend discovered that people who choose to stay in their own homes, and particularly privately owned homes bearing in mind maintenance and other costs, often live a less attractive life than people in many residential homes?
I believe that it is a matter of balance. Many people can enjoy a high standard of living in comfort in surroundings to which they have been accustomed throughout their lives, with the necessary support. Other people may well need help in residential and nursing homes, and we have substantially increased the amount of support that they can receive.
Family Credit
12.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it now takes to process claims for family credit on average.
In November the average clearance time was 17·5 working days. The family credit unit has now beaten its clearance time target of 18 working days in each of the last four months.
Does the Minister accept that some people have to wait a long time before their family credit is paid? Often that occurs because employers are reluctant to supply information and that causes real hardship. People in my constituency have difficulties in paying their mortgages because the payment of their family credit is slow. Will the Minister make it clear that it is the duty of all employers to furnish information as quickly as possible? Would it not be better if payments could be made within seven working days rather than the time that it takes now?
I looked very carefully at the recent correspondence concerning constituents which the hon. Gentleman has referred to us in relation to that subject. I am pleased to say that we can offer hope for improvement on two counts. The first relates to people who are normally employed. Next April, we will introduce a new administrative formula that will significantly improve processing time and cut down errors. The formula has been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which does not want to consult on it, but would like us to implement it as soon as possible.
Secondly, we have asked the social policy research unit at York university to carry out research in respect of the self-employed. That work is going well and I hope that we will have the conclusions by the middle of next year. On both counts, we will ensure that the job is done speedily. However, it is up to employers to speed up their response. The new arrangements that I have outlined will provide employers with a form to give information to employees applying for family credit, and that should speed up the process.Pensioners
13.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated proportion of pensioners who own their own homes.
In 1988, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes.
Is that not encouraging evidence of the extent to which pensioners are sharing in the advance towards greater independence and higher living standards? Is there not an extra benefit for those fortunate enough to own their own homes in that a state pension related to the retail prices index, which includes housing costs, contains a concealed bonus for them?
My hon. Friend is certainly right to believe that it is an advantage and evidence of the success of our policies that a growing number of pensioners have the extra independence that owning their own homes can bring. That trend is also reflected in the ownership of many other things, including telephones, central heating and cars, for which the increase between 1979 and 1988 has been quite dramatic.
Invalidity Benefit
14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many referrals concerning claimants in receipt of invalidity benefit were sent to the regional medical officer from his Department's local offices in (a) 1990, (b) so far in 1991 and (c) what percentage of the total number of such claimants these referrals represent.
It is not possible easily to identify invalidity benefit from other incapacity benefit referrals. However, in total, 824,000 referrals were made in 1990, representing 29 per cent. of claims live at any point during the period. Up to September this year, there were 694,000 referrals, representing 25 per cent.
How do the referrals figure in terms of national averages for the two offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow? Why is such a hard line taken towards people who, in the eyes of GPs and consultants, are manifestly unfit for any kind of work? One constituent of mine has been referred to the regional medical officer 15 times since 1985. That is harassment of the worst kind. It is a case for the Parliamentary ombudsman. It is malpractice, and that hard line should be thrown overboard.
Of course, if the hon. Gentleman would like me to give him figures for his own constituency offices, I will do so in writing. If he wants to raise any individual cases, he knows very well that I will do that. His talk of harassment and a hard-nosed approach hardly squares with the figures. The case load for invalidity benefit from 1978–79 to 1991–92 has increased from 600,000 to 1·35 million. Obviously, it is right that we should be careful about expenditure on that scale, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will give him such information as he requests.
Church Commissioners
Investment Policy
29.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement about the Commissioners' investment policy.
The Church Commissioners' long-standing investment policy is the effective and prudent management of the assets entrusted to them, to achieve the best total return for the furtherance of their primary object, which is the financial support of serving and retired clergy.
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the success of the Commissioners' investment policy, which has enabled them significantly to increase stipends? Does he agree, however, that it would be more effective for the Church if stipends were related to performance rather than minimum stipends?
My hon. Friend will appreciate that performance-related pay in the cure of souls is a difficult concept. Nevertheless, the Church of England is actively engaged in a programme of appraisal of clergy performance, with which are linked proposals for consideration of the terms and conditions of service of clergymen, including the continuation of the parsonage freehold.
Redundant Churches Fund
30.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much has been granted to the redundant churches fund in each of the last two years.
The redundant churches fund received £1·7 million from the Department of the Environment and £760,000 from the Church Commissioners in 1990, and £1·8 million and £774,000 respectively in 1991.
My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, endorse the importance of fostering sacred and secular links. He may be aware that the custom of displaying royal arms in churches has fallen into abeyance since Queen Victoria's time. Will he make representations within the budget to which he referred to urge the Commissioners to restore that agreeable practice in the 40th year of this monarch's reign?
It is true that, from 1660 onwards, it became compulsory to display the royal arms in every church as a reminder to clergy and the congregation that the monarch was the head of the Church. If that practice has declined somewhat, it has been because nobody had any doubt that the Queen was the head of the Church. However, should Mr. Delors and the European Commission cast envious eyes at the Church of England from Brussels, it may be necessary to encourage the reintroduction of the painting of the royal coats of arms on parish churches in England.
How often in the past two years have the Commissioners ignored the advice of the redundant churches fund, and how many historic buildings have been lost thereby?
I think that only one historic building has fallen prey to the failure of the Commissioners and the Advisory Board for Redundant Churches to meet, consult and agree. The work and co-operation of those bodies is very vigorously, sensitively and carefully carried out to ensure that redundant churches of note are not demolished.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that fewer churches would be declared redundant if they were less expensive to maintain? In that context, will he assure me that the Church Commissioners are continuing to press the Treasury for relief from VAT for repairs to listed buildings?
I assure my hon. Friend that that is the case.
Theft
31.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what has been the amount lost through theft in respect of Church Commissioners' property over the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
The majority of the Commissioners' property—commercial, residential and agricultural—is leased to tenants who would naturally insure against theft themselves. The Commissioners therefore do not have details of individual cases, and cannot estimate the amount lost overall.
I hope that the Commissioners are concerned about the prevalence of theft from churches for which they are ultimately responsible. The number of artefacts that is now leaving the churches rivals the number at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries. In my day, it was just the lead from the roofs that went missing, but it is now anything that can be put into the back of a lorry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of an excellent book that has been written and published by the Staffordshire police, who are so very good at smuggling guns into Brixton gaol, which tells churches how they can be made more secure to stop things being taken from the buildings? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that all churches have access to that excellent publication?
Yes, and I shall certainly take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the Church Commissioners are not directly responsible for parish churches. The hon. Gentleman talked about smuggling arms into prison. Although the Church Commissioners are more concerned to ensure that bibles are, if necessary, smuggled into prison, we shall certainly be on the lookout for guns being smuggled into churches.
Does my right hon. Friend think that my National Lottery Bill might be the answer to many of the Church Commissioners' prayers, as one of its objects would be to benefit our heritage, the proudest part of which must be some of our churches? Does he agree that making money available to the Commissioners for that end would play a substantial part in helping to secure those parts of the Church that are of extreme value—the things that are now being stolen?
I should emphasise to my hon. and learned Friend that praying is never a gamble and that the income to be derived from gambling is a great deal more volatile than that which is likely to be derived from praying. We shall stick to the safe old ways.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about theft from redundant churches, which are so frequently not protected against people breaking into and vandalising them? Will my right hon. Friend now make representations to the redundant churches fund, so that sufficient money can be made available properly to secure those churches until an alternative use is found for them?
Yes, I take note of my hon. Friend's point, which should be a practical preoccupation for diocesan authorities. As my hon. Friend will know, demolition is sometimes an option when a church is declared redundant, but, generally speaking, the use of that redundant church for alternative beneficial social purposes is quickly arranged.
As somebody who is very interested in and responsible for redundant churches in Scotland, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, since it is Christmas, he thinks that it would be charitable of the Labour party, so that the the redundant churches can be repaired, to return the £26 million that were given to it by Mr. Robert Maxwell?
That is a bit wide of the question. I am not certain that the Church Commissioners are responsible for churches in Scotland, but let us hear the answer.
I am particularly glad to have a reminder of the Christmas spirit from so distinguished a Scottish colleague. That can only mean one thing in this context, but fortunately the Church Commissioners are not responsible for church buildings in Scotland.
Ordination Of Women
32.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what financial estimates the Church Commissioners are making in respect of the effect on their expenditure of the introduction of the ordination of women; and if he will make a statement.
In the event of the draft legislation being enacted, the cost to the Church Commissioners would depend on how many clergy resigned who were eligible for financial assistance. The cumulative cost to the Commissioners' income per 100 men has been estimated at £4·5 million spread over up to 20 years, although that could be offset by savings to the Church of England of over £2 million over that period as a result of the departure of clergymen. Those clergy would also have access to the Church's retirement housing scheme.
Does my right hon. Friend and those whom he represents accept that those people—I am not one of them—who oppose the ordination of women have a right to their conscience? Will the Church Commissioners make continued provision for them and for their churches, even if they form part of a schismatic movement, as they have every right in conscience to do?
I can confirm that it is the deliberate intention of the General Synod of the Church of England to make certain that, if the House endorses the ordination of women—should it come before us, which it may not—clergymen who depart on conscientious grounds will be provided for. The Church of England is determined on grounds of principle and general sensitivity in human relationships to make good provision for those who feel that they are bound to resign their livings.
rose——
Dr. Godman, but the question is about the Church of England.
May I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he and the Church Commissioners are worried about the intended and unintended consequences of the ordination of women, they could seek wise advice from the Moderator of the Church of Scotland? We in Scotland have some fine women ministers, who carry out their duties in an honourable and decent manner.
The hon. Gentleman refers to "women ministers", but, alas, the very word "minister" illustrates the controversy. A minister is not necessarily a priest, and it is the ordination of the priesthood that causes the difficulty.
House Of Commons
House Sittings
33.
To ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any plans to present further evidence to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House; and if he will make a statement.
The House will be aware that I have already submitted a written memorandum and given oral evidence—in a personal capacity—to the Select Committee. I have indicated that I would be willing to have a further meeting with the Committee if it wished me to do so. I am sure that the whole House looks forward, as I do, with great interest to the forthcoming recommendations of that Committee.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that one of his recommendations is a four-day week for Tory MPs? Will he bear in mind the fact that he has a cheek to recommend that on behalf of his colleagues, when more than 200 Tory Back-Benchers have 500 moonlighting jobs between them? If they are too busy to do a five-day week, how come they can take on all these extra jobs? Nineteen ex-Cabinet Ministers have 59 directorships between them. The right hon. Gentleman should recommend, one Member of Parliament, one job only.
I have not recommended to the Select Committee that we should have a four-day week. It is a travesty of the suggestions being put to the Select Committee to represent them in that way. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, some Members of Parliament from constituencies way beyond London feel that it is important that they should be able to go to their constituencies on Fridays. They have important activities to undertake there. It is nonsense to suggest that it is a four-day week. For most Members of Parliament, it is at least a six-day week.
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he will seek to implement any changes in this Parliament rather than the next?
That depends, first, on when the Select Committee reports, and, secondly, what it says and whether its proposals commend themselves to the House. I understand that the Select Committee hopes to report well before Easter. If it does so, that will reflect considerable credit on the Committee. It has a heavy job to undertake and it has received a great deal of evidence. I hope that it can meet that timetable so that Parliament can meet its recommendations.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover refers to a four-day week, he simply misunderstands what is going on. I spent seven hours journeying to London today. It will take me another six or seven hours this weekend. Many of us spend 12 or 15 hours a week travelling to and from our constituencies. My hon. Friend completely misrepresents the position when he puts it to the House of Commons and the British public that Members of Parliament are getting off with a shorter week.
On this occasion, I find myself 100 per cent—[interruption.] It is interesting to see a dispute on the Labour Benches. On this occasion, I find myself 100 per cent. in agreement with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and in total disagreement, not for the first time, with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Visitors' Facilities
34.
To ask the Lord President of the Council what facilities are available for visitors to the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
Visitors in Members' parties are able to tour the line of route at times when it is open and they and other visitors are admitted to the galleries when the House is sitting and to Committees sitting in public.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should make visitors a little more welcome when they arrive at Victoria Tower. especially after a long journey? There are no toilets and there is nowhere to sit down, which is especially a problem when there are many people milling about at peak times.
We endeavour to do so in every way possible, but my hon. Friend will be aware that the main constraint is accommodation in this place.
What progress has been made for wheelchair access to the Jubilee Room and the Grand Committee Room?
As I have said on a previous occasion, approval has been given for the installation of a chairlift up to the Grand Committee Room.
What can my right hon. Friend do to encourage Members who represent constituencies in London and nearby to invite their visitors to come here early in the morning? My constituents from Stockport have to get up at 5 or 6 in the morning to get here for midday. They are then faced with an enormous crush because everyone arrives at the same time.
This will largely depend on the willingness of Members to co-operate. I appreciate my hon. Friend's suggestion, because my constituents often face the same difficulties. I will consider what can be done, but I suspect that it is up to individual Members.
Is it not a continuing disgrace that visiting parties of the disabled, pensioners and children are denied the simple hospitality of a cup of tea or a place to rest while the political and business cronies of hon. Members are royally entertained in this Palace at subsidised expense? Why does the Leader of the House deny the publication of information that he gave me two years ago on the political complexion of those hon. Members who entertain most? Why is that information now a state secret?
On the second point, because it is not relevant. Bookings are undertaken by individual hon. Members in their parliamentary capacity; it has nothing to do with political representation.
On the first point, the Catering Sub-Committee is due to consider the results of a feasibility study to determine whether reasonable catering facilities can be provided fairly close to the Palace.Working Hours
36.
To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent representations he has received about the hours of working of the House.
I have received a few letters both from hon. Members and members of the public regarding the review of sittings of the House. It is not surprising that there are not many to me, because the representations at this stage are being made to the Select Committee.
At the risk of being accused of making a sexist comment, may I assure my right hon. Friend that any success he has in this will be warmly welcomed by the wives of Westminster? May I also suggest, however, that one of the consequences of altering the hours at which the House sits will be that it will be more difficult for children to come round in the morning?
My hon. Friend could have avoided being sexist by referrring to the "spouses" of Members. That would have been a more accurate description, because husbands also encounter difficulties in this respect. I was keen to set up the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and keen to give it the evidence I did, not just to improve the position of families but for a wide variety of other reasons. If we can conduct more of our business at more civilised hours, it would help a little. The issue of children visiting the House will be one of those taken into account and considered by the Select Committee.
Has the Leader of the House seen the early-day motion that I tabled last week? It has been signed by a significant number of Members, who seek to see the time of Question Time on Monday changed because of the inadequacies of public transport due to inadequate investment, crime, terrorism or bad weather, which may get worse in the next few months. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that proposed change sympathetically, so that hon. Members can get down here to ask the questions that may appear on the Order Paper in their names?
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put his point to the Select Committee, to which it falls to make recommendations on that matter.
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there would be strong opposition on both sides of the House to any disproportionate loss of private Members' time? Will he consider the fact that ten-minute Bills, which I think he has proposed abolishing, are especially valued by many hon. Members? They are an opportunity to raise issues when many hon. Members are present, and their loss would not be acceptable.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about disproportionate loss. If we seek to change the hours, which may involve reducing the number of hours that we sit, we must consider a proportionate change across the board. It was in that context that I made my recommendations. I was suggesting moving the time at which private Members can have business raised in the House to a more high-profile period of the day. I also wanted my recommendations to be balanced. However, it will be for the Select Committee to make recommendations to the House, for the Government to consider them and to make proposals to the House and, ultimately, for the House to decide.
European Standing Committees
38.
To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 25 November, Official Report, column 415, what recent representations he has received about the modus operandi of European Standing Committees A and B; and if he will make a statement.
I have recently seen copies of several Members' submissions to the Procedure Committee's first stage review of the operation of the revised scrutiny arrangements. I look forward to receiving the Procedure Committee's report soon and shall consider carefully any recommendations it might contain about the operation of the new European Standing Committees.
Following Maastricht, is it likely that the modus operandi of those Committees will change? Will there be an increase or decline in the work load? Several of the permanent members of those Committees feel that changes must be made in terms of both of the permancy of the chairmanship and of the need to provide specialist advisers to those permanent members.
It is too early to say whether there will be an effect following Maastricht. The Committee is considering both the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made, and I expressed my own views on them to the Committee in my oral evidence.
Mortgage Repossessions
3.31 pm
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall the brief reference by the Secretary of State for Social Security earlier this afternoon to today's meeting between Ministers and the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the subject of mortgage repossessions. The issue is clearly of grave concern to hundreds of thousands of families who risk losing their homes, and to local authorities that will have to shoulder the burden of the homelessness that might ensue. It is also of grave concern to owner-occupiers who must fear the catastrophic impact on property values if so many houses are repossessed. Yet there has been no formal statement from Ministers. They may have nothing to offer, but that has not stopped them holding press conferences or making public statements.
Have you, Mr. Speaker, had any intimation from Ministers that they intend to make a statement, today or in the very near future, that would at least enable the House to question Ministers about that meeting and to show that, even if Ministers have no solution to offer, the Opposition have?I agree that it is an important matter. That is why I allowed a long run on question 1 today—[Interruption.] It was longer than I would normally allow. I made inquiries about the press conference and I am assured that it had nothing to do with this matter. The hon. Gentleman's point will no doubt have been heard by Ministers responsible.
Orders Of The Day
Local Government Finance Bill
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause
Transitory Exemption For School Leavers
'.—(1) After paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the 1988 Act (personal community charge: exemption) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"School leavers.
5A. A person is an exempt individual on a particular day if—
(2) After sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6A of Schedule 1A to the 1987 Act (personal community charge: exemption) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(1A) If such a person as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above ceases to undertake such a course of education on or after 30th April 1992, he shall continue to be exempt until the start of the earlier of the following days—
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.33 pm
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 17—Abolition of 20 per cent. community charge contribution and extension of community charge rebates to students from April 1992—
'.—(1) In subsection (3) of section 131 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (community charge benefits) in paragraph (a) the words "and is not there shown as undertaking a full-time course of education on the day" shall be deleted;
(2) In subsection (5) of that section after "concerned" there shall be inserted:—
"up to 100 per cent. of his liability for personal community charge contributions";
(3) Sections 1 and 2 above shall have effect from April 1992.'.
Government amendments Nos. 127 and 128.
Although the Bill is principally about the council tax, the new clause relates to the community charge and what is known as the student gap. At present, exemptions from the personal community charge exist for 18-year-old school pupils in respect of whom child benefit is paid, and 18 and 19-year-olds who are on qualifying courses of further education. But about half of the 200,000 people who fall into either of those categories go on to full-time education and become entitled to student relief of the community charge.
At present, however, there is a student gap, which may last for a few weeks or a few months, separating the exemptions from the day on which a person enrols on a full-time course of education. Although it is possible for such a person to claim community charge benefit during that time, thus reducing his or her liability by up to 80 per cent., we accept that the administrative burden imposed on both the individual and the charging authorities is unnecessarily heavy. We therefore propose to relieve local authorities and school leavers of that burden by exempting, until 31 October 1992, 18 and 19-year-olds who are undertaking a qualifying course of education on 1 May 1992.I suspect that new clause 33 is the forerunner of numerous similar Government-inspired changes to a Bill which the Government assured us, when they dragooned it though its Committee stage, was in pristine and perfect condition and would need no amendment. This is, I suspect, the beginning of a process that will lead to much the same outcome as was brought about by the hundreds of Government amendments—sometimes running into four figures—that have been tabled to similar Bills. If such an outcome does indeed result, it will show just how damaging the guillotine and the resulting truncation of Committee debate have been.
We none the less welcome this particular representative of the genus. If all the others deal with small issues in a way that improves the Bill, we shall have less ground for complaint. The new clause is undoubtedly good news for the group of students who will benefit from the closing of what the Minister described as the student gap—I believe that the Government's estimate is 200,000. This is, of course, part of the slow, gradual, painful process whereby Ministers are forsaking, step by step, all the policies and principles that underpinned the poll tax. One by one, the arguments that were said to justify it are being abandoned. New clause 33 does not go far enough. Typically, the Government have had the courage to concede by implication that they have lost confidence in what they legislated for so confidently just a short time ago. What they lack is the courage and confidence to pursue their conclusions to their logical outcome. As a consequence, students are still not entitled to rebates, and the 20 per cent. contribution rule remains, along with all the damage that it does—especially to local authorities that are struggling to collect the poll tax. Our new clause 17 would extend to students the right to claim community charge and, in due course, council tax rebates. Students are undoubtedly a section of the population who have suffered substantial hardship as a result of Government-inspired measures. I have a student daughter myself, and I know from her accounts—and from her constant recourse to the parental purse—that life is indeed very difficult for students. Their grant has been frozen in real terms at much below the level at which they could expect to survive on it; they have been denied entitlement to income support, housing benefits and rebates; there are no jobs with which they can supplement their incomes during vacations; and those who find themselves desperately hard up discover, when they turn to the hardship fund, that it has already been exhausted. For all those reasons, I think that students are particularly deserving of help. The Government's proposal is welcome, but it only scratches the surface of the problem. Our new clause 17 would establish their entitlement to rebates, which would benefit them greatly. We expect to have an important debate tomorrow afternoon on the 20 per cent. contribution rule, which the Government insist on retaining until 1 April 1993; but our new clause 17 would also have the effect of abolishing, as from 1 April 1992, this 20 per cent. contribution rule. If it were abolished, that would have the blessing, as far as I am aware, of every local authority association, the Institute of Revenues, Ratings and Valuation, and the Child Poverty Action Group, the very strong blessing of the citizens advice bureaux—and the enormously authorititative support of the Audit Commission, which, in its report, had this to say on the subject:I do not intend to rehearse at length—the opportunity for that will come tomorrow—the powerful arguments, financial and practical, which would support the abolition of this rule at the earliest possible date. Today I shall content myself with quoting what I hope by now is a familiar argument for the Minister, advanced by the Audit Commission. It is that the attempt to collect the 20 per cent. contribution from those on income support costs 15 for every £6 net revenue raised. Even on grounds of simple housekeeping and accounting, that ought to conclude the argument. It is not even as though the Government have adhered to their own reasons for refusing to act on this in the past. They have conceded, by abolishing the 20 per cent. contribution rule for the council tax, that there is no ground in principle for maintaining it. We all recall that in the heyday of the poll tax the one principle that Ministers and Conservative Members were most reluctant to abandon was that everyone should pay something. That principle has now been abandoned; the Government no longer advance or maintain that position. They abandoned the principle for the council tax, so no argument in principle remains. The Government then resorted to the argument of practicality. They said that it was impossible to abandon the 20 per cent. contribution rule because income support rules had been constructed on the basis that a 20 per cent. contribution had to be paid. They said therefore that if the rule was changed there would have to be a consequential change for the social security rules. That argument no longer applies because no consequential change is now required. The Government have abandoned any pretence that income support payments include an element that would cover the 20 per cent. contribution, so they can do away with the 20 per cent. contribution rule at the earliest practical opportunity, with no difficult practical consequences for income support. We are left with a slightly opaque, not to say metaphysical, argument from the Minister of State. He maintained that the rule was an essential concomitant of the poll tax because it was a personal tax, yet we a:re told that in respect of the council tax, which is also, at least as to 50 per cent., a personal tax, there is no difficulty in doing away with the 20 per cent. contribution rule. If it can be abandoned in the case of the personal element of the council tax, it is hard to see why it cannot be abandoned immediately for the poll tax. If it were abandoned, the burden on local authorities of trying to collect what the Prime Minister described as a virtually uncollectable tax would be substantially lightened, and that would be of great benefit. Ministers are fond of criticising local government because many local authorities are less than 100 per cent. successful in collecting the poll tax. If they were serious about helping local government with that difficulty, they would abolish the 20 per cent. contribution rule. That is what our new clause 17 would do. I commend it to Ministers, but, bearing in mind our debates in Committee, I confess that I do not do so with any great hope that they will see sense for once and will accept this sensible recommendation."Local authorities say that large numbers of income support recipients are in arrears with community charge payments for 1990/91. These chargepayers make up a very small amount of the total value of outstanding community charge. Pursuing these defaulters for such small amounts is not a good use of scarce recovery resources when there are much larger debts outstanding. The Government have already accepted that there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. Abolition of the minimum 20 per cent. community charge contribution for income support recipients would ease the administrative burden on local authorities very considerably."
3.45 pm
I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to fill in the student gap, but I am bound to say that I can see no logical reason for attempting to collect the 20 per cent. from students now that the Government have conceded in the new council tax that students will not pay it. My council and students would very much like the 20 per cent. contribution to be abolished for the final year of the tax.
I am a bit bemused about the definition of a student and should like to have it clarified for England, Wales and Scotland. The Government have moved away from their view that everybody should pay the poll tax and are making some amends. However, the plight of students is well known to every hon. Member and it is absurd, especially in Scotland, that local authorities are trying to collect the 20 per cent. from students for 1989–90.
Earlier in the debate a Scottish Office Minister was present, but he has departed. Do the Government have figures for Scotland about the number of students involved and the cost to local authorities of trying to collect this tax? The Government have abandoned in the so-called council tax not only the rule that everybody has to pay but a key element of the poll tax—accountability. There is no strict relationship between local authority finances arid the accountability of councils to the electorate who may or may not be paying. Although the Government proposal is welcome, it flies in the face of all logic. They are redressing a gap but not accepting the other enormous gap of students in Scotland being asked to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax from 1989 onwards. Local authorities are chasing up and down the land trying to collect taxes from people who may have moved three, four or five times. That is nonsense. The cost is exorbitant and the Government should take this opportunity to tell that to local authorities, especially in relation to students, although there are other categories to which we may refer in other clauses and amendments. The Government are getting into an absurd position and they should recognise that.I do not question the fact that in some parts of the country students are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Like the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I also declare the reverse of a pecuniary interest because we are paying out to our student sons and daughters. Some students have been placed in difficulties by local authorities that have set a community charge that is so far beyond the reach of people that even the 20 per cent. required from students makes life difficult. Students in my borough of Wandsworth and in other, mostly Conservative, boroughs whose community charge was below target have no problem, because an element of the student grant meets 20 per cent. of the reasonable charge. The difficulties arise in Labour boroughs where authorities have rashly and ineffectually overspent.
I welcome new clause 33, which deals with the student gap. It takes up the issues that I raised with Ministers in Committee. They said that they would consider the problems that I drew to their attention and would produce a solution on Report. I think that the hon. Member for Dagenham could have been a little warmer in his support of the Government's proposal. As the hon. Gentleman said, the new clause deals with a comparatively small problem in terms of the number of students who are affected by it, but to them it is a real problem. We know that until the end of December the family of the school leaver is still eligible for child benefit. There would, therefore, be exemption until then. However, after the end of September there is no longer that eligibility. It would be nonsensical if a young person who was waiting to go to college was required to pay. It is surely to be welcomed that students will not find themselves in that position. I use this opportunity to say that local education authorities throughout the country have, in the context of the debate, reached only the end of October. All too often, student grant decisions are being taken at such a slow pace that even at that stage a student's place in higher education may not have been confirmed. There is a message to local education authorities to be quick about getting student grants to students. That must be in addition to the helpful remedy that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has adopted to eradicate the anomaly that was built into the system.The proposed changes are welcome. They will offer a little help in moving towards meeting what can be described only as a considerable task.
Students have had a hard time in recent years. New clause 17, which would abolish the 20 per cent. requirement, receives our warm support. It would provide enormous help. Surely the Government could accept it on the ground of cost. The Audit Commission and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives have told the Government that the cost of collection of the 20 per cent. requirement is two and a half times the sum that is collected. If the Government wish to act in addition to their desire to help people, there is the argument that removal of the 20 per cent. obligation would be extremely cost effective. There are good reasons to help students, whose grants have decreased in value in real terms. The pressure on parental contributions is making life extremely difficult during the recession. This is at a time when the Government are trying to encourage more young people to go into education. The requirement that we are discussing is running counter to other Government policies that are designed to help young people to move into further education. The Government are well aware of the few in the 16 to 19-year-old range who are in education in this country compared with the numbers in other European countries and in other countries throughout the world. That comparison relates to both further education and training. We welcome the improvements that are to be made, but there is much more that could be done. Students are always willing to make a contribution if they have sufficient money to do so. At present, they just do not have enough money. One of the reasons why they receive moneys late through local education authorities—I take up the comments of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—is that LEAs do not have staff available to them to process the many applications that are made in July and August because of the Government's power to cap local authorities. Even in Conservative-controlled authorities that have always been held up as being cost effective, and certainly not profligate, it is difficult to bring in extra staff for two months of the year to process grant applications. There are many more applications than there were, because there are, in many instances, no real jobs for young people. As a result, they are being forced into education, but, at the same time, they are not receiving the grants that they deserve. By supporting new clause 17, we would be supporting also several parts of the Government's policy. I hope that the Government will find it possible at this stage to make concessions and to help the students.I wish to make a plea on behalf of Scottish students who, after all, had the poll tax imposed on them one year before it came south of the border. There are bound to be many more students in Scotland than elsewhere who will be pursued for arrears, and that point has been made adequately. It is ludicrous to pursue people for their debts when the cost of collection is two and half times the amount of the debts. Given the poverty in which those students find themselves, will the Minister consider having an amnesty for those students? The 20 per cent. payment will be seen by people, particularly students in Scotland, as a sign of the Secretary of State pursuing political dogma over economic sense.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) got off to a pretty poor start when he talked about the Government coming forward with hundreds of amendments. We have tabled one new clause, which covers ground not covered by amendments in Committee, and five sets of amendments, all of them arising from the Committee proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is really expressing his profound disappointment that the Bill was so well drafted that it was not necessary to have rafts of amendments. So flimsy was the Labour party's attack on our proposals in Committee that we did not discover any chinks or openings in our policies. The spirit of Committee means that, when one finds measures that can be improved, one proposes amendments, but the Labour party did not unearth aspects of which we were unaware. The Committee gave us two or three matters to think about, and we are happy to introduce measures to deal with them.
It was clearly anomalous that students should leave school expecting to receive an 80 per cent. discount on their personal community charge when they become students in higher education but in the brief intervening period be subject to a full community charge, less any income support to which they are entitled. It is right that we should end that anomaly. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dagenham, who has a student daughter, is keen to take students back into the benefits system. Our taking students out of the benefit system is a major step forward. To have available to people who have withdrawn voluntarily from the labour market to pursue their studies the benefits which have been provided by Parliament to those without resources or income because of circumstances beyond their control is to give entirely the wrong message to students. The fact that we have amended income support and housing benefit to take students out of that benefit system has been a great step forward.The Minister has clearly demonstrated why he proved so impervious to the powerful arguments which we put to him on so many issues in Committee—he is totally out of touch with the real world.
Many parents believe that it would be, and was, wrong to have their student sons and daughters brought into the benefit system. That system was not intended for students. The fact that students are not provided for in that way is a great improvement.
Surely the Minister accepts that the student grant was geared to take students through the long summer vacation, when they got no money. The Government removed their access to benefit, leaving them with a 16-week period during the summer without benefit. How is that gap bridged?
The financing of students should be by a combination of grant, loan and moneys which they may be able to earn and not by bringing them into income support or housing benefit, which would be absolutely wrong.
The hon. Member for Dagenham made a point in which he was erroneously joined by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). He quoted the Audit Commission's figure which purports to show that collecting from students and the other 20 per cent. payers costs more than is collected from them. As I explained in Committee, that is a wholly erroneous figure. The £6 that the commission quoted purports to be the difference between what is made available through income support to those who pay 20 per cent. and what they were paying back in addition in community charge. That is a completely false comparison. What matters is that, as the Government have made moneys available to those on income support so that they can pay their 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge, those moneys should be collected. The amount at stake is £440 million and the average cost of collection now stands at £12·50. If the Opposition want to make a comparison, the fact is that the average 20 per cent. payment is about £50 and the average cost of collection is about £1250, so £37·50 stands to be collected over and above the collection fee.rose——
4 pm
The comparison quoted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) and others is false, because, taking account of the fact that the Government are paying large sums in benefit to help people to make the 20 per cent. payments, it implies that that would have to be withdrawn. That would involve a heavy cost which the Government are not prepared to undertake. I think that the British public also believe firmly that, as money has been voted from taxpayers to income support recipients so that they can meet their 20 per cent. contribution, that money should be used for the purpose for which it was intended, especially since the headline figure of the community charge was reduced by £140. That means that the average now being made available as an addition to income support more than covers the average 20 per cent. being sought.
I shall quote some figures which show that the additions now stand at £1·31 a week for single people and £2·62 a week for couples, but as the estimated net average community charge level for Great Britain this year is £2·10, that would imply that the average 20 per cent. contribution was 80p a week for single people and £1·60 a week for a couple. Therefore, the amounts that we are providing in income support are much higher than the average that those people are being asked to pay.The figures that the Minister has just given and the ones that he gave in Committee are not in dispute. However, does he know of any other tax under which the Government would put money into a system and give it to people while expecting to get it back, then not get it back and pay extra money in order not to get it back? That is the situation in this case. Have the Government any similar ideas for such taxation schemes, because if one took that scenario further, the country would be bankrupt in a very short time?
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to give any encouragement to the people who are not paying, but there is no question of an amnesty, as suggested by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). Moneys have been made available to people on benefit in order that they may pay their contribution to the community charge and we have every right—as do the taxpayers—to expect that those moneys are paid to local authorities for the purpose for which they were intended. Therefore, there will be no amnesty and local authorities will continue to enforce the payment of the 20 per cent. contributions.
rose——
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I was about to answer the point that he made. He wanted to know what was the definition of a student. New clause 33 and the two amendments would close the student gap, so we are talking about 18-year-olds who are at school and whose parents receive child benefit for them and 18 and 19-year-olds, whose parents do not receive child benefit, who are on a qualifying course. Such a course could be described as further education as opposed to higher education. The regulations state that the person must be on a relevant course and that the relevant hours of that course must exceed 12 hours in a week. A relevant course is one that lasts for more than three months, is not higher education, not a correspondence course and must usually be followed during the day, not at night school. We are trying to ensure that those who are at school or at college—doing A-levels, for example—and who then cease to be in that position but who are going on to higher education do not have to pay community charge in the short gap between leaving one part of their education and moving to the other.
Despite the Opposition's rather testy and ungenerous reception, I am sure that the provision will be welcome. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said. It will be of great help to all if local education authorities are able to make quick determinations. I commend the new clause and the associated amendments to the House.Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Cr J 8–4Lause 1
Community Charge In Scotland
'(1) Before 9th July 1992 the Secretary of State shall cause to be published a report, to be called the Community Charge Report, on the effects of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987.
(2) The Community Charge Report shall assess the effects of the Act on—
(3) Before publishing the Community Charge Report the Secretary of State shall consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, representatives of consumers and such bodies with an interest in the impact of taxes on persons with low incomes as appear to him to be concerned.'.— [Mr.Dewar.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
New clause 5— Scottish annual report—
'( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report to Parliament on the workings of the council tax.
(2) In preparing his report under subsection 1 above, the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to effect of the tax on:
New clause 7— Cost of the council tax in Scotland—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the introduction of the Council tax, publish a report detailing the cost of introducing the tax.
(2) The report prepared under subsection 1 shall contain the costs accrued by local authorities, whether met out of central funds or not and the cost of valuing the properties.'.
New clause 8— Effects of the Community Charge—
'.—(1) Before 9th July 1992 the Secretary of State shall cause to be published a report, to be called the Community Charge Report, on the effects of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (the Act).
(2) The Report shall assess the effects of the Act on—
(3) Before publishing the Report the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority associations, representatives of consumers and such bodies with an interest in the impact of taxes on persons with low incomes as appear to him to be concerned.'.
New clause 10— Discounts—
'.—Sections 11 and 12 below shall not come into effect until such time as the Secretary of State has produced a report on:
New clause 12— Annual report—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report to Parliament on the workings of the Council tax.
(2) In preparing his Report under subsection 1 above, the Secretary of State shall have particular regard to effect of the tax on:
New clause 13— Cost of the council tax—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the introduction of the council tax, publish a report detailing the cost of introducing the tax.
(2) The Report prepared under subsection 1 shall contain the costs accrued by local authorities, whether met out of central funds or not and the cost of valuing the properties.'.
New clause 27— Non-payment (inquiry)—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a report detailing the level of non-payment of the community charge for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.
(2) Any report under subsection (1) above shall include details of the amounts outstanding from charge-payers liable to the 20 per cent. contribution.'.
Amendment No. 15, in clause 117, in page 78, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) Section 11 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced the report required by section (Discounts) above.'.
The new clause raises a matter of considerable substance which will delay the House for a significant time. I understand that Ministers are not too keen to remember that once proud flagship, the poll tax. I do not intend to spend time rubbing salt in wounds, although I recognise the temptation and have been encouraged by my hon. Friends to do that. We want to look forward, although I cannot help remembering the speeches made in 1987 on the subject of the poll tax and the extent to which the predictions made then, not only by the Opposition but by many others, have turned out to be justified.
I remember the derision which met the Tory Reform group when it said that the popularity of the poll tax was dropping as fast as a stone over a cliff. I remember with some amusement the Minister of State, Scottish Office saying that the opposition by the Tory Reform group to the poll tax legislation was the first and most pressing reason why that tax should be supported. It has always struck me as an intellectually interesting but not very substantial point. The clock has moved on and, understandably, Ministers now want to walk by on the other side. I warn them that I see no great advantage in concentrating on the new form of the rating system which they are now introducing. The more people look at the small print, the less they will be convinced. New clause 1 seeks to place on the Government the duty of producing a report that will deal with the record of the poll tax and the current situation which it has created, both for those who have to pay it and for local government which has to maintain services on it. It would point to the lessons which should have been learnt by central Government but which we fear may not have been. It is important to stress that there is a genuine reason for a report, and that is our apprehension that as a result of the very tight timetable which has been ruthlessly enforced on the debate many of the details of the new system will not be properly considered. There is a real fear that many of the disadvantages which linger administratively with the poll tax and which still plague us may be imported into the new system. The report and examination proposed in the new clause would do something to guard against that danger. That point is given added weight by the fact that Ministers are always anxious to deny that the new system is a form of rating system based on capital valuation, which it evidently is. I do not have the advantage—I use the word tentatively—of having much experience of the style of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities. I am not familiar with it, but I have already noticed that it is deadpan and perhaps funereal. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was a great step forward for the student community to leave it virtually without any means of support for large parts of the year—particularly during the long vacation. I found that a very individual approach to the problem and would venture gently to suggest that it will not command universal support among students in my constituency or, I suspect, any other constituency. My own view is that the present system may appear tolerable to students and their parents if those parents are in a position to make a substantial parental contribution without financial embarrassment; but I must tell the Minister—and this goes to the heart of some of his arguments—that, in all my years in Parliament. I cannot remember a time when students have been more bitter and more genuinely distressed by their economic situation than they are at present. I use the word "bitter" having given the matter considerable thought. There has been a series of demonstrations and I have had a series of approaches from individual students—particularly the heads of one-parent families going late into higher education—who feel that they have been betrayed and who, frankly, would be appalled by the way in which the Minister has just dealt with the subject. The preparation of the report that we seek would enable us to examine the impact of the poll tax on a whole series of aspects of local authority finance and life, which is set out in the new clause. The report would consider the economy and efficiency of local government finance. It is a cliché hardly challenged these days that local government, at least, has had to live through a nightmare in which confusion has shaded into chaos as the poll tax has continued on its most unfortunate course. It has cost two or even three times as much to collect as the rates, and we have had a network of incomprehensible adjustments, transitional allowances and reduction schemes, all moving into each other to produce a system which I certainly—and I make no bones about this—have the greatest difficulty in understanding and in explaining to people who come to me with questions that are beyond the reasonable compass of people not professionally involved in dealing with such systems. It is also important that we consider the justice—or, rather, injustice—of what has happened and try to learn lessons from that. I do not want to repeat the familiar arguments about a flat-rate tax unrelated to ability to pay. To be fair, the Secretary of State has accepted for some years that the poll tax was essentially unjust and indefensible and said so at quite an early stage. It appears that the Government now accept that and, presumably—although I do not say this with very much confidence—the right hon. Gentleman has managed to persuade the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the phalanx of no-turning back Members who surround him in his departmental fastness of that fact. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has been able to convince his colleagues that the poll tax 'was an inhumane system which is rightly being abandoned on that ground if no other. It is important that the lessons to which I referred are learnt, and that would, I hope, be one of the consequences of the report for which the new clause would provide. There are others, and I shall briefly sketch them in. First, there is the impact on local government services, which has undoubtedly been considerable. Secondly, there are the problems of non-payment. Thirdly, there is the reduction to dangerous levels of the percentage of revenue controlled by local government itself—now down to 12 or 13 per cent. in Scotland and even lower, I think, in Wales. Although that phenomenon has been politically convenient for the Government, it has been condemned by local authorities and professionals across the whole range because, in the longer term, it will undoubtedly undermine and weaken local democracy in a way that, whatever our political persuasion, we may come to regret. It has preserved and built into the system a gearing factor which I find repugnant and which undoubtedly puts local authorities in a consistently difficult position, not least in dealing with burdens and statutory duties placed upon them by central government. Another aspect with which I hope the report will deal is the damaging undermining of confidence in local government as a system, and in local government finance in particular. I take that point very seriously from a non-partisan point of view. Many of my Conservative friends share that view. That undermining is partly the result of the past 10 years of Government policy—the "pay as you use" approach to local government services, the privatisation and competitive tendering. It was also, however, partly the result of the non-payment campaign run by other people in other parts of the political spectrum. The proposition that local government taxation is a voluntary imposition which people may take or leave as they wish has insidiously gained currency. That view may cause acute problems for any local government system in future. 4.15 pm Those are all areas of genuine importance about which real points can be made and where an impartial survey that would bring together the facts would be a considerable service for debate and the future planning of local government financial systems. There is a tendency for Conservative Members not to face up to what has happened, but to talk in vague and general terms about a lack of consensus and support for the poll tax. Well, that is a self-evident truth. The reasons for that lack of support and the imperative of trying to avoid the mistakes which created that situation are matters of pressing concern that fully justify the proposition in new clause 1. I want to refer now to my particular interest, and that, of course, is the situation north of the border. There is no doubt that Scottish local government is in crisis. The poll tax has been a disaster, the full extent of which is only now becoming evident. The shortfall in income for the first two years of the tax is about £350 million. My regional authority of Strathclyde has lost £190 million between 1989–90 and 1990–91. The figure for Lothian is £76·5 million, and for Tayside it is £21·9 million. The position in 1991–92 is as bad if not worse. After five months of this financial year, £584·7 million was unpaid, representing more than 70 per cent. of the expected income for this financial year. I recognise that Ministers accuse councils of not doing enough to collect the tax. That is an easy way for them to escape their responsibilities and to avoid facing up to what has been happening. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), will know, there have been advertising campaigns in the press and on television. Non-payment has been condemned by local authorities in the strongest terms. No fewer than 3 million summary warrants have been taken in the courts. There have been 100,000 arrestments and 550,000 voluntary agreements to cover payments of arrears. No one is proud of the fact that we have been driven to that. No one is proud of the present position. The figures are evidence of the misery and confusion created by the Government's blunders. Ministers bear the first and greatest burden of guilt, but others must take their share of the blame. Nationalists who have argued for non-payment must also answer a heavy charge. The non-payment campaign was never more than political opportunism dressed up as principle. Among the nationalists there must be some at least who have been unwilling travellers on a dishonourable road. I remember the nationalists' former leader, Gordon Wilson, advising against a rash and selfish adventure, but he could not hold the line against the heady populism advocated by those who ultimately replaced him. The party joined forces with Militant Tendency openly and, on that issue, without reservation. It was extraordinary to find the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) publicly defending the Anti-Poll Tax Federation—an organisation that advocates and practises the tactics of violence. He was defending a demonstration during which cars were damaged, 29 people were arrested, and a police station was besieged. Many nationalists must be uncomfortable about the company that they keep on that question. Labour, too, was under pressure over non-payment, but a responsible party does not advocate irresponsibility. There were a number of good reasons for not advocating non-payment. It has carried weight with Labour, but apparently not with the nationalists. Politicians who hope to make law cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. It is a luxury which they cannot afford and which sets a dangerous precedent. Predictably—I speak with some feeling about my experience in my own constituency—many people living in modest circumstances were tempted by non-payment. They now face the problems of debt and debt collection. The nationalists, the authors of that misfortune, can offer no help. How can the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) or any of his colleagues look in the eye of a pensioner who is threatened by a sheriff officer? All that the nationalists can do—they certainly do it—is to complain about the inevitable consequences of their own actions, blaming everyone but themselves. Non-payment was bound to affect local government services—it was designed to do so. Marginal reductions in funding hit many of the most vulnerable in the community. The SNP, in its search for party advantage, has made a significant contribution to that disaster. This year, Strathclyde region has been forced to cut £34 million from its budget. When a library closes or education services suffer, people are entitled to ask, "Is this the price that we are now paying for the SNP non-payment campaign?" Its actions have pushed up bills for everyone else. In Lothian this year the poll tax was £48 higher than it would have been if it had not been for non-payment. The SNP must take direct responsibility for that increase. The addition is, in a real sense, the Sillars surcharge or the Salmond tax. We are entitled to hear the SNP's current position. It ended the non-payment campaign, but not because it was satisfied with the Government's alternative to the poll tax—it did not even wait to see the details. The one decisive factor was the growing unpopularity of non-payment itself. SNP Members are not satisfied with the proposals in the current Bill—after all, they opposed it on Second Reading but they are not sufficiently dissatisfied to risk continuing non-payment or indeed to seek a place on the Committee considering the Bill. Nationalist Members apparently take the view that those whom they represent do not need a voice on a wide range of issues debated in the House. That is a deliberate decision, but it is not one on which their constituents have been consulted. A year ago—I remember it very well—the nationalist candidate in the Paisley, South by-election, a member of the party's national executive committee and, indeed, a member of the new-fangled shadow Cabinet, was asked what he would do if the sheriff officers were at his door. The answer that he gave was clear and practical in personal terms—he would reach for his chequebook and end the embarrassment. Every hon. Member knows that that solution is not open to many of my constituents or to many of those who listen to the nationalist soft-sell on non-payment. There was no pretence in the housing schemes, and in the battered inner cities non-payment was only for those with a chequebook and who could take the strain. Thousands and thousands of ordinary Scots are now paying the price for that. It is no surprise that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities reports that 70 per cent. of those in debt were originally entitled to a poll tax rebate at some level. Rebates of course—I regret this—can be backdated for only 56 days. Many who would have been entitled to rebates now face huge bills which they have no hope of meeting. I advise the hon. Member for Eastwood that the Government should act now to abolish the 20 per cent. rule—there is no excuse for not doing so—and allow those in debt to claim the rebates which should have been available to them all along. The Government must bear the main responsibility for all the pain and suffering, but the SNP is also guilty. The role that it has played has been irresponsible and contemptible. Throughout this debate, and throughout all the years of argument and discussion, the Government have sought to avoid the clear implications of what they were doing and have been guided by blinkered ideology. A report of the kind for which we argue in the new clause would highlight lessons to be learnt and perhaps bring some good from the fiasco that the poll tax has been. I hope that it would concentrate Ministers' minds on the need to give practical help to those who have suffered. It might also reinforce the view, which badly needs buttressing, that local democracy must be a foundation for freedom in this country. Providing an independent voice so that local communities can run their own affairs is an important part of our democratic structure. All those things have been damaged by the poll tax experience and they must now all be rebuilt. I said earlier—I do not retreat from this view—that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was one of the early converts to the obvious. He was one of the first Conservative Members to be converted. I can still remember the speech that he made on 16 December 1987 because I was struck forcibly by it. He said that the poll taxThe right hon. Gentleman meant that and, to be fair to him, he acted upon it when he had the opportunity. The tragedy is that, although the right hon. Gentleman has had to capitulate on the principle in many ways and has forced many of his hon. Friends to do so rather less willingly, he has got many of the practical details wrong. Many of the practicalities will lead us back into trouble. The report that we seek would throw light on that possibility. We must also remember that many of those who surround the Minister—many Conservative Members—have learned nothing and wish to learn nothing from the poll tax experience. I note that only a year ago, on 5 December 1990, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:"will build on a platform of crude regression which seeks to make equal in the eyes of the tax collector the rich and the poor, the slum dweller and the landed aristocrat, the elderly pensioners living on their limited savings and the most successful of today's entrepreneurs."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987: Vol. 124, c. 114.]
In a particularly spirited passage, the right hon. Gentleman continued——"we must not lose sight of the strength of the underlying principles that are already embodied in the community charge."
The Scottish people need to be reminded again and again that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) willingly and eagerly voted for the Scottish poll tax Bill.
Indeed, he did. We had an exchange on that point in a recent debate when, by chance, the right hon. Gentleman was present. That just shows that the laws of chance work in wondrous ways. Although I do not want to make much of it, I explained to the House then that there was a good defence and an alibi and that the right hon. Gentleman offered us the explanation that he had asked the Secretary of State for Scotland about it and had done what he was told. That might be close to a Nuremberg defence, but it is at least something that can be advanced for the right hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State for Scotland showed absolutely no doubt about the rightness of what he was doing when he defended the poll tax. I was particularly touched by the right hon. Gentleman's thought in that debate a year ago when he continued:that was supposed to be dramatic irony—"Is it sophisticated"—
The right hon. Gentleman then went on to describe at some length something that sounded very much like the council tax that he will now no doubt defend. On that occasion——"to have a method of payment for local services based solely on the bricks and mortar in which one happens to live?"—[Official Report, 5 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 397–400.]
The Secretary of State would embrace it.
My hon. Friend is probably right because I will say this for the Secretary of State for Scotland: he is not a man to see the fine tuning in any argument; something is always absolutely black or absolutely white for him.
Many strata of opinion remain in the Government and in the Conservative party. The Government may well be swept away to the Opposition Benches shortly and I very much hope that that will be the case. However, I advise whoever is in government that there is genuine virtue in looking dispassionately, professionally and with an expert view at the record of the poll tax, and especially at the administrative details, to try to ensure that we do not import into the new system the seeds of self-destruction that Ministers so foolhardily built in to the flawed and totally unjust poll tax a few short years ago. I believe that what we have suggested is worth doing. This is a good new clause. It would set in train what might be a useful antidote to some of the dangers about which we are so well aware and for which many of our constituents are still paying the price.4.30 pm
It will surprise several hon. Members that: early on in the debate we are able to talk a little about Scotland. While I am grateful for the new clause, which I support, I wonder whether it will help the disappointment at the endeavours of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to stop an amendment tabled in Committee by the Liberal Democrats to abolish the poll tax in Scotland a year early. Of course, it was guillotined.
It is right that we should examine the impact of the poll tax in Scotland as well as the rest of Britain, for no consideration was ever given to what its impact would be in Scotland. In the Scottish context, it is particularly ironic that the poll tax should be replaced by a property tax, because it was the unfairness and hardship caused by the rates in Scotland which led to the hurried and disastrous introduction of the poll tax. As we have heard so often, the Conservatives had no mandate to introduce the poll tax in Scotland. They were warned of the consequences at the time, but they paid no heed. Indeed, they failed to listen to the Scottish people in the 1987 general election, when the disintegration of the Conservative party in Scotland started. They failed to pay any attention to the results of introducing that tax. Of course, we see the consequences for the Conservatives now. It must not be forgotten that the hardship caused by the poll tax, the difficulties in collecting it and the overwhelming public opposition to it—the factors cited as the reasons for abolishing the tax—not only existed for a year longer than in England and Wales but were ignored when only Scotland suffered. The crisis in local government caused by the poll tax is more acute in Scotland because of that extra year of cost and chaos. The Prime Minister has led in giving the general impression that the poll tax has been abolished. Non-payment is already at critical levels, as we heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Next year, non-payment will increase as people think that the bills do not apply to them. That is the case at present. Hundreds of thousands of people think that the poll tax has been abolished, so they think that the bills which come in are simply the result of a mistake by the computer. The high level of non-payment is the reason why we are committed to abolishing the poll tax a year early in Scotland and, for one year only, putting the cost on national income tax. It would be a practical means of ensuring that local government services are provided, that the excessive waste and cost of collecting the poll tax is avoided and that the hardship of the 20 per cent. charge is ended. It would also be a symbolic gesture. It would mean that the Government acknowledged at last that they were mistaken in forcing the tax on to the Scots. Of course, the lack of a Scottish Parliament with tax-raising powers means that English and Welsh taxpayers would have to contribute to the abolition of the poll tax in Scotland. That is regrettable but unavoidable, but, as it was English Members of Parliament who voted for the tax in Scotland, it has a certain justice. Unless the poll tax is abolished in Scotland, the cost to local authorities will be insupportable. I make a particular plea to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about the position in the Western Isles. I do so following an invitation from the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to meet council members of Western Isles council who came to the House to brief Members of Parliament. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Office has said that it will meet those councillors, but unless Ministers are prepared to help the people, it could be the end of the Western Isles and the people in them. They have struggled for hundreds of years and suffered a great deal. They should not be called upon to suffer further. After all, the Government have a responsibility and they must share culpability for what happened, because the council was not warned about the collapse of Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The Government cannot leave that council to sink. This country owes the Western Isles and its people a great deal. I hope that the Minister will give them the greatest consideration and say, "Yes, we will help you, the people of the Western Isles."I am listening closely to what the hon. Lady is saying. I hope that she will recognise that the Secretary of State has authorised the Western Isles to borrow £24 million this financial year to meet its requirements. I am sure that she will also acknowledge that the community charge paid by those on the Western Isles is between £26 and £28 per annum. That charge is a fraction of the average paid by other community charge payers in Scotland.
I am aware that the Secretary of State has allowed the council borrowing powers, but it requires £3·5 million to service its borrowing requirement.
The poll tax on the Western Isles may be high or low, but the fact is that jobs will be lost, schools will be closed and we will witness a further emigration of people from the region. That will mean an end to that people's culture, Ianguage and way of life, as they will be unable to survive in the Outer Hebrides. Taxpayers in Scotland, England and Wales should be told the cost of introducing another local tax. The administrative costs of valuing properties, introducing new software and establishing new billing methods will fall on the taxpayer—local and national. In the interests of accountable government, the electorate must know the true cost of collecting the new tax and correcting the Government's mistakes. That is the purpose of new clauses 7 and 13. New clauses 5 and 12, in common with new clause 1, intend to force the Government to report to ParliamentThe Government must not be allowed to ignore the consequences of their actions as they sought to do with the poll tax. I assure the Government that the new council tax will throw up many anomalies and unfairnesses. They must be noted and corrected. If the will is there, the Government will acknowledge and correct their mistakes. We welcome the discount system for single people. Tomorrow, my party hopes to persuade the Government to increase it to 40 per cent. Whether we succeed or fail will not alter the fact that the impact of the council tax on single people must be carefully monitored by reports to Parliament."on the workings of the council tax".
The local tax system proposed by the hon. Lady is based upon an ability to pay. I find it rather surprising that she now says that she accepts the discount system, which covers everyone, whatever his income. The hon. Lady is now proposing a 40 per cent. discount, which would mean that the better-off would get even more.
That is not what I am saying. I do not like the council tax; nor do I like the Labour party fair tax or whatever it is called. We would like the introduction of a local income tax, based on the ability to pay.
In Scotland, a higher proportion of people rent rather than own their homes. Therefore, they obtain no benefit from the capital benefit of the property in which they live, unlike homeowners. The council tax, especially in areas such as Edinburgh, will penalise renters. People who rent privately lost when the poll tax was abolished becaue many private landlords did not pass on their savings to their tenants. Now they will lose again because their bills will depend on the landlords' circumstances, not theirs. How that will be conducted should be reported to Parliament. The council tax will also cause many problems to people in tied housing or similar property provided for and through employment. Many examples of occupations that cause concern should be reported on. An obvious example is Church property. It has often been in Church hands since the days when the status and income of Churchmen were higher than they are today. Manses, especially in Scotland, used to be given a 50 per cent. derating, but that no longer seems to be the case. I am particularly concerned about farm workers in owner-occupied or tenanted farm houses. They must often live in large, old and rambling farm houses. We all know the crisis that agriculture is in at present. Farm properties provide no income, and the principle that the value of a house can be calculated by its size and potential price on the property market must not be extended to agriculture. Farm houses have been traditionally low rated and, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that they would be placed in a lower band because of the present state of agriculture and the lack of demand for such houses. At least he recognises the problem, and I hope that the Minister who replies will say that agricultural houses will be placed in a lower band. Others in tied housing, such as schoolteachers, school caretakers and policemen, will also be adversely affected. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood, will recall that, in 1989–90, the rates portion of the rent allowance for police officers was abolished without compensation. That meant a reduction in earnings of between £45 and £57 a month, and it affected more than 2,000 police officers in Scotland. Rural areas like my constituency of Argyll and Bute were even more affected, because 80 per cent. of police accommodation there is of necessity tied housing. The rent allowance that included the rates portion was long regarded as part of a police officer's take-home pay. The Government refused to implement the award of the police arbitration tribunal, which included that rates element. The allowance used to be linked to property, and I hope that it will be restored and police tied houses will also be put in a special band. Those problems will have to be carefully monitored if we are to avoid the chaos of past years. The reports are for the future. They are designed to ensure that the Government accept their responsibility for the cost and workings of the council tax and that they do not seek to blame any failure of the tax on local authorities. The priority for Scotland is the immediate abolition of the poll tax to rescue the people and Scottish local government from a complete shambles and near-disaster.4.45 pm
It is interesting to note that no Tory Members now rise to defend the poll tax, despite the fact that it was introduced in Scotland against the will of the people.
They are coming in now.
If they speak in the debate, it is unlikely to be in defence of the poll tax. However, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) may be in a state of mind to do so, but that remains to be seen.
The new clause is worth while because accountability is good for the soul. It occurs to me, however, that for that to work one must have a soul. When the poll tax was pushed through against the democratic will of the Scottish people, it was obvious that the last thing that the Government cared about was the needs of other people. They had no consideration for those who were too poor to pay it, and compassion was distinctly lacking on the Conservative Benches. They were determined to push that medicine down everyone's throats and it was not surprising that people spat it out so vehemently. Today, no one is left to defend the poll tax, except perhaps one or two isolated individuals who may speak in favour of it—who knows? However, there was a time when the Tory Benches were packed with hon. Members who knew better than the people of Scotland what was best for the rest of us. If the report were drawn up, it would be a useful task. It would remind us of certain facts regarding the introduction of the poll tax. For example, when the poll tax was being drafted, the Government were warned by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Rating and Valuation Association, as well as local government accountants and town clerks throughout the land, that it would be utterly chaotic. CIPFA published a chart for the benefit of its members on how the poll tax would operate. It was not being contentious or using it for publicity purposes but wanted to aid its colleagues in local government who had to contend with operating the tax. The report caused much amusement to those of us who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill for England and Wales. We thought that, if that was supposed to be simplicity, heaven knows what complexity would be like. But the Government went ahead and ignored all the warnings. Likewise, they ignored public opinion, which was expressed vehemently at the time of the general election and which has been repeated at every possible opportunity since. There is an amazing contradiction between the Government's attitude to last week's discussions at Maastricht and their attitude to democracy within the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister poses as the defender of Britain's right to do as it pleases and not have nasty foreigners telling us what to do, but within the United Kingdom the Conservative party was willing and determined to impose a poll tax on the people of the United Kingdom, whether they wanted it or not. I shall be interested to hear whether they can straighten out that contradiction. The poll tax has had an enormous impact on services and jobs. Strathclyde region alone expects to lose some 750 jobs if lost moneys cannot be restored quickly. That will have an enormous impact on Strathclyde region, not only for those 750 jobs but for the community at large through the loss to the local economy. I do not know how the Government can regard that with equanimity. They know about the unemployment in the west of Scotland, particularly in Glasgow. They are faced with a serious loss of jobs on top of all the job losses in the past, yet they are determined not to respond in an obvious and sensible way. If they extend the measures under the council tax to the poll tax and allow those who will pay 20 per cent. to pay nothing, that would at once resolve the problem of lack of Government money. It would still not resolve the problem entirely, however, because the main problem is a sheer lack of Government support for local government. The Government have always claimed that the poll tax was about enhancing local democracy. It has been noticeable how many people, especially young people, have removed themselves from the electoral register. Because they simply could not afford to pay the poll tax, they have deprived themselves of the right to vote. The Government know that thousands of people have done that and that the electoral roll has gone down considerably in many areas, especially in impoverished urban areas. The Government are assiduously trying to build up the electoral register by seeking Tory voters in every country in the world, but they are not prepared to encourage people to come back and become entitled to vote here. It is necessary for the victims of Government decisions who are living here to assert their democratic rights, or for others to assert those rights. The Minister has told us that he considers the Bill to he without serious defects of any kind. The Government had introduced a few paltry amendments of their own, but had accepted no amendments from Labour—because, apparently, we had said nothing that they did not know already. That remark will stick in all our minds. Once again, the Government are saying that they know exactly what they are doing: they know what they are doing to students, student nurses and people suffering from Alzheimer's disease whose partners do not pay poll tax and who are billed in their stead, regardless of their own mental condition. People will be dumbfounded to learn of the big change in the legislation—the duke will no longer pay the same as the dustman. He will now pay three times as much. All over the country, people will be saying, "That is a big democratic advance." There will be enormous anger over the continuing injustice of the Government"s notion of how local administration should be financed, and a good deal of disquiet about the fact that all single individuals will receive discounts, regardless of their personal circumstances. That is nonsensical, and it contradicts the Government's own stated policies. They have consistently refused social security benefits to the very needy, on the ground that they are targeting the neediest. Is it "targeting the neediest" to hand out discounts to people who are already extremely well off? The Government's entire policy is a shambles, and they will soon be slung out because of it. We shall ensure that the country knows what they are doing. It is they who will have to pay, and they will do so, whether it is in February, March, April, May, June or July.It is difficult not to think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) did not want a new clause to enable the issues that he mentioned to be investigated, but, rather, wanted a new clause to "involve" the complicity of the Scottish National party in opposing the poll tax by persuading certain people not to pay at a certain time. I worry about the state of the law when a lawyer starts using the technique of "guilt by association".
I did not.
I shall make every effort not to misquote the hon. Gentleman. None the less, he gave the House the clear impression that he was associating the Scottish National party with Militant Tendency in regard to violence. The hon. Gentleman nods his assent. If that is not a McCarthyite technique, I do not know what is.
That is a very serious accusation.
It is. People have been expelled from the Labour party because of such association. It is serious to accuse someone of a McCarthyite smear.
I am pleased to be speaking after the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I note that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is also in his place. Not so long ago we all sat together in Glasgow, in a committee of 100: I shall not refer to the other hon. Members who were with us, as they are not present today. We suggested then that we should protect those who could not afford to pay, and who would be confronted by all the rigours of the law so beloved of the hon. Member for Garscadden.I clearly remember a time when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)—who, I am sorry to say, is not here today—was so anti-Trot that he threw people out of the party that he had drawn together in the mid-1970s, whether they were Trots or not. Now he finds himself associating with them. That is very strange.
I do not know who the hon. Lady means. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here, however, and I am courteous not to refer to any hon. Member who is not present and whom I have not given notice of my intention to do so. Hon. Members generally try not to do that, as far as is humanly possible. Nevertheless, I can tell the hon. Member for Maryhill that I am quite willing to answer for my part in the episode that I mentioned—with a degree of pride, but not vaingloriously.
The hon. Lady does not deny that, along with other hon. Members who are present today, she advocated non-payment.I thought that the hon. Gentleman pointed at me then.
No, indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, does not think that any of my remarks concern him.
Other matters would require investigation in a report. The hon. Members for Maryhill and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned a mandate, but the hon. Member for Garscadden did not refer to the fact that the Tories have no mandate in Scotland. That is because he is a Unionist. He is quite capable of standing up and blaming everyone except himself for the imposition of the poll tax. I remember, in January 1988, pleading with the hon. Gentleman to tell the Leader of the Opposition that we should show some guts, and that, when the Leader of the Opposition went to Edinburgh, he should not suggest that we go cap in hand to pay the poll tax. The hon. Member for Garscadden cannot gainsay that—and that is not guilt by association. The hon. Gentleman should stop acting like a big wean, and behave like a man. Although he did not mention it in his speech, the hon. Member for Garscadden takes some responsibility for a matter that should be examined in any report: the imposition of poinding and warrant sales. He and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) thought nothing of parading through Glasgow behind banners proclaiming, "No warrant sales here". Examination would reveal that Labour authorities had used the threat of poinding to coerce the people referred to by the hon. Member for Maryhill who cannot pay and thus have no choice. What has the Labour party done to defend them? The hon. Member for Garscadden has used the Nuremberg defence—"I had to obey the law". It was like a pantomime to see the hon. Member for Garscadden running past Knightswood Cross with his pamphlet, "Garscadden News No. I", saying, "Rejoice, rejoice" and telling people that, in effect, Labour had killed the poll tax.Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The hon. Gentleman took part in the "don't register" campaign and ran about trying to persuade people not to register. Then he caved in. However, I am talking about the hon. Member for Garscadden, who, as I say, was running around distributing "Garscadden News No. 1"—we await issue No. 2.
At least I am not running away from the constituents who elected me.
Neither am I, and I never have. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is not here today. I would not be a member of a party from which the Leader of the Opposition could expel me. It is a measure of the gutlessness of the Labour party that someone like the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East can get thrown out of it for taking a stand rooted deep in the traditions of the Labour party.
5 pm The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) wanted me to give way to him earlier. I have attacked his posture on non-registration. New clause 27 is after something not dissimilar from what the hon. Member for Garscadden wants: an examination of non-payment and why people cannot pay. Strathclyde has done a survey showing that 70 per cent. of those who did not pay could not pay. These people do not need persuading; their economic circumstances rule out their ability to pay. That is why most people did not pay.The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of a mandate. Having been elected under one party label by his constituents, having reneged on that party label, having then stood under his new party label in a local government election and having been defeated, and having declared his intention to stand under another party label in a different constituency, does the hon. Gentleman think that he should perhaps return to the people of Dunfermline for a mandate?
The hon. Gentleman is not correct. I never stood with another party label in a local government election in my time in the Scottish National party. I have fought many elections and I know that a losing candidate gets the blame. I have taken the blame when I have lost, but, oddly enough, when one wins, it is the party that has gained the victory, never the individual.
We got the poll tax because people were thirled to the party banner. This is not a House of free-standing men and women; they are dragooned through the Lobbies by the Whips. The hon. Member for Garscadden would have to take the same medicine if he came to power because he believes that he is entitled to govern here if he gets a mandate in the United Kingdom, regardless of what happens in Scotland. The United Kingdom mandate is spurious. How can the Labour party say that it has a mandate for the United Kingdom when it does not even put up candidates in Northern Ireland? People who, like me, opposed the poll tax rightly argued that the Government never had a mandate in Scotland. I challenge the hon. Member for Garscadden to face me in debate on this issue. He will be asking the electorate to give him and the Labour party their votes to pursue particular policies. Thereafter there will be little discussion and the hon. Gentleman will not be arguing about the sovereignty of the Scottish people from then on. The hon. Member for Garscadden had the temerity to sign the claim of right in the Scottish convention. It concerns the exercise of the rights of the Scottish people. I shall give way to him on this if he has the guts to stand up. It seems that he does not like what I am saying much—perhaps my language is a little too industrial for him—but I would be willing to engage in this sort of argument with him in Garscadden.What about Dunfermline?
Yes, there too. [Interruption.] Why is not the Labour party asking for a by-election in Coventry? I have fought more elections than some Labour Front Benchers have had hot breakfasts and I have already said that losing candidates always take the responsibility.
What about the Co-op?
I did not hear that, but if the hon. Gentleman will get off his backside he can repeat it.
The Co-op has been a good meal ticket for the hon. Gentleman and it is odd that at this stage in his career he should depart from anything and everybody who put him where he is today—and three times throw away a Labour seat. That is a matter between him and his conscience; but if he has any conscience left, why does he continue to draw his salary under the label of a party he was not elected to serve as a member of?
That is not really worth answering. Any obligations that I have to the Co-operative movement have been honourably discharged, and there are hon. Members here who know that. I have more than repaid my obligations to the Co-op. In any case, that is not part of this discussion.
If we are to have a report, let it examine every aspect, including ability to pay. The council tax does not take that into consideration; nor do Labour's proposals. My party makes it plain that a tax related to ability to pay must be related to income. The tax in Scotland will raise about £800 million and cost about £80 million to collect—£l for every £10. There will be no relationship to ability to pay and there will be a register of sorts, although it will not be called that. The tax will involve a costly benefit system for the 100 per cent. discount scheme and there will be searching tests for those who are eligible for 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. discounts. My party has produced figures to show how a local income tax could be put in place in Scotland. I do not have the figures for every region or district with me, but in general terms the proportion of revenue raised by local government is about 14 per cent. in Scotland—to be raised from the equivalent of non-domestic rates either under the poll tax or the council tax. If that is the average over the length and breadth of Scotland, it is reasonable to assume that for some local authorities it will be under 5 per cent. That means that this paraphernalia is necessary to collect £1 in £20. There has been no indication from Labour that it will abandon the Government subvention on that. Labour has not said whether it would try to collect more or less than the Government are trying to collect through local revenues in the non-business sector. Why has Scotland had to impose so much administration at such great cost? It is because the Government will not face the fact that Scotland could have a local income tax that would be easily and cheaply administered and would avoid all the bureaucracy and cost. I am not arguing the case for England and Wales. Part of our new clause relates to the 20 per cent. rule which the Government have partly abandoned. I plead with them to abandon it completely from I April 1992 and to make it retrospective in Scotland. About 3 million warrants are out and another of our amendments, which I hope will be reached tomorrow, deals with poinding and warrant sales. Such methods for the recovery of small amounts are acts of terror. The hon. Member for Garscadden or the hon. Member for Cathcart should make it clear when winding up that Labour is utterly opposed to Scottish local authorities using this barbaric device. They should dissociate themselves wholly and entirely from it.I understand that the hon. Gentleman's party chose not to seek membership of the Committee that examined the Bill. It certainly asked us to boycott the Committe. In Committee, I moved an amendment to take the warrant sales procedure out of the Bill. I was supported by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and by my hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman had sought a seat on that Committee, I think that he would have got one and would have been able to vote against warrant sales.
It is not the same thing. I apologise if I have not made myself clear. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to make it plain that Labour is opposed to the imposition of warrant sales.
In the short time that I have been in the House, many of my hon. Friends have established an honourable record for seeking to introduce a more humane form of debt collection. I refer in particular to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Some of us seek a more humane form of debt collection.
I accept that. It is no accident that two of the hon. Members that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned were, in the early days, among the leading proponents of a non-payment campaign—I apologise, I have got that wrong. Certainly the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who is in his place, will accept what I have said in relation to him.
The SNP and Members from other parties introduced a Bill to abolish warrant sales. If the poll tax is dead and, like the hon. Member for Garscadden we should be saying, "Rejoice, rejoice, rejoice", the hon. Member for,Garscadden or the hon. Member for Cathcart should use their position as Front-Bench spokesmen to make it clear that Labour is opposed to the use of poinding and the threat of warrant sales to impose a tax that is dead. If they cannot do that, they should not use their Front-Bench offices slanderously to attack other parties and accuse them of supporting organisations that seem to promote violence. I do not think that it is worth while asking the hon. Member for Garscadden for an apology, but he should, as a lawyer, reflect clearly and cautiously on what he has said.Has the hon. Gentleman ever shared a platform at a rally with Tommy Sheridan and members of Militant Tendency?
Wait a minute, this is really getting in. The answer is, yes, of course. I have shared platforms with many individuals, but I have made my position clear on those platforms. That is exactly what I said at the beginning of my speech. This is a clear case of trying to get guilt by association. The hon. Member for Maryhill has shared a platform with Tommy Sheridan.
5.15 pm
I want to put it on the record that I have never done any such thing.