House Of Commons
Monday 29 January 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers To Questions
Duchy Of Lancaster
Deregulation
1.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what analysis his office has made of the number of regulations approved by the Government since 1979 which affect businesses; and how many of these regulations he has removed. [9978]
In 1994, there were 1,467 statutory instruments, excluding road closures and local transitional and commencement orders, of which two thirds either were specifically intended to help business or had no impact on business. I do not have comparable figures for earlier years. We are now monitoring all statutory instruments on a monthly basis to ensure that they are necessary and that the benefits exceed the cost.
I do not know who the Minister thinks he is kidding if he thinks that the Government have a record for deregulation, because he is certainly not kidding business men in my constituency. Is it not the case that this Government have created more regulations than any Government in British history and that they are in the process of creating an administrative bungle, on the scale of that in the Child Support Agency, with their introduction of self-assessment for the self-employed and for businesses, which will create an enormous burden on business in my constituency and across the country because it is being rushed in?
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about self-assessment, which is due to be introduced in the next financial year. It will be a success and its introduction is being carefully monitored. Labour opposed the 1994 Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on Second Reading and at all other stages. That is an example, once again, of Labour saying one thing but doing another.
How many of those statutory instruments and other regulations affecting business have been brought on us through EU directives? Is my right hon. Friend confident that he has the powers to deregulate those regulators or the mechanisms and proposals to put before the intergovernmental conference later this year? [Interruption.]
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to an important subject, which the deputy Leader of the Opposition seems to find funny. The number of directives likely to be passed by the Council of Ministers in the coming year is likely to be substantially down on the past few years. Yes,. we have the mechanism to deregulate existing European law, where it is sensible so to do.
Cabinet Committees
2.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how often each Cabinet Committee which he chairs meets. [9979]
When Government business demands it.
We can hardly call that an illuminating reply. Let us see if the Deputy Prime Minister can have a stab at this question: as the Minister responsible for the presentation of Government business—he chairs the Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy—what would the Prime Minister—
Not yet.
I was a couple of months ahead of myself. What would the Deputy Prime Minister have to say to a group of politicians who promised to cut taxes year on year and then raised them by the largest amount in peacetime history?
I would tell them that we had protected those least able to protect themselves in the aftermath of one of the worst recessions since the war and that, as we had done that and created one of the most successful economies in western Europe, we are now back on a tax-cutting agenda. If they wanted to watch taxes go up, they should just put a Labour Government in power.
When my right hon. Friend next chairs the relevant Cabinet Committee, will he say whether he agrees that a political party that opposed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, successive Criminal Justice Acts, the Prison Security Act 1992 and even the modest measure that banned joy-riding is soft on crime and the causes of crime, and merely sheds its crocodile tears for the victims of crime to conceal its real sympathy for the criminals?
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out most eloquently this morning, people who are now in prison for crimes that they committed would not be in prison had the Labour party had its way in resisting our changes.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he is responsible for the presentation of Government policies on crime and that, since 1979, burglary has increased by 160 per cent., theft from vehicles by nearly 200 per cent. and violent crime by 400 per cent? That is the real Tory record. Is that not why he resorted to abuse, innuendo and slurs over the weekend, to hide the real truth about crime? Will he now take this opportunity to apologise to the Opposition for the untruths that he told yesterday, and to the British public for his Government's record on crime?
The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that spending on law and order has more than doubled in real terms since 1978–79, police manpower has increased by 32,000, or 22 per cent., and recorded crime has shown the largest fall over a two-year period. That is in contrast with what the Labour party voted against: raising the maximum sentences for serious crime, giving the Attorney-General the right of appeal against lenient sentences, strengthening police powers to stop and search criminals, giving the police more powers to deal with disorder on the streets and making parents more responsible for their children's actions. It is another classic example of Labour saying one thing and doing another. It is a classic example of hypocrisy in this critical field.
Deregulation
3.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he is taking to accelerate progress on the deregulation initiative. [9981]
By the end of 1995, we had already dealt with more than 500 of the 1,000 or so regulations identified by Government for repeal or amendment and we shall tackle the remainder over the coming months. The first deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 have now passed into law and there is a steady flow of new orders. We shall continue to seek support from the European Commission and member states for our deregulation initiatives.
Small businesses are important economically to this country, especially small rural businesses, which breathe economic life into areas that might not experience it, if not for their existence. Will my right hon. Friend therefore encourage his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments to look at fresh and imaginative ways to lift bureaucracy and regulations from the shoulders of those small rural businesses?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extremely important to monitor properly the impact of regulations, whether they come from Brussels or Whitehall, on small and medium-sized enterprises. That is why I have written recently to all Ministers reminding them of the need carefully to monitor the impact of any proposed regulations, particularly from Europe, on small and medium-sized enterprises.
If a group of politicians had promised to abolish 1,000 regulations and instead brought in 200 extra regulations, would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster call them hypocrites or liars?
I would call them extremely successful.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to rescind, if necessary, directives emanating from the European Union that have an adverse effect on British business. Will he put the electro-magnetic compatibility directive at No. 1 in that category? It is particularly harmful to small businesses, whose owners may be penalised to the extent of three months' imprisonment or a £5,000 fine if they do not comply with the directive. That is quite excessive and it bears heavily on small businesses.
I agree with my hon. Friend that a number of directives, including the one to which he refers, need either amendment or repeal, and I have tabled eight suggestions for the Commission to examine. I note that last week some of his hon. Friends published a pamphlet entitled "Dire Directives". I think that the pamphlet's thrust is correct and I have invited the members of that group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), to attend an early meeting.
Government Policy
4.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new proposals he is making to enhance the co-ordination of the presentation of Government policy; and if he will make a statement. [9982]
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest and can assure him we are constantly seeking to enhance the co-ordination of the presentation of Government policy. We seek every opportunity to explain how only this Government's policies can ensure economic success combined with constitutional stability.
I am grateful to the intellectual wing of the Department for that reply. Can the Minister explain why, in presenting Government policy at the weekend, the Deputy Prime Minister launched an election campaign—that is, he launched his campaign to succeed the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) by proving that he is as big a right-wing villain as anyone else in the Cabinet? How do the Minister and his colleagues justify the immense expenditure of taxpayers' money on what is now nothing more than a Tory party Ministry of lies? Would they not be better off returning to Tory central office where their gutter politics will be more appreciated?
I think that we are getting our message across rather well, as the events of the past 10 days have shown.
Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to publish a paper about the Government's approach to hypocrisy in public life so that Labour Members may benefit from an accelerated learning curve?
It would certainly be a long paper as it would cover Opposition policies on crime, education, the economy and housing. I look forward to such a publication.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a number of Conservative policies on law and order that were presented at Conservative party conferences have been quietly dropped? I refer, for example, to compulsory identity cards or the Home Secretary's very expensive plan to ensure that all prisoners serve their entire sentences without remission. Does that not illustrate that many of these law and order policies are political gimmicks with no practical crime-cutting benefit? Has he become the villain's friend?
The Government have published a consultation document on the identity card scheme and responses to it are being considered now. As to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary at the party conference, he has a fine record of implementing the measures that he announces at party conferences.
Ec Regulations (Competition)
5.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what priority he gives to representations from United Kingdom industries in assessing EC regulations which affect competition policy. [9983]
Business views are central to our assessment of the impact that proposed Economic Community regulations have on United Kingdom competitiveness.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under competition policy, the European Community is due to review the block exemption for the tied house arrangement between British brewers and public houses? More than 27,000 tenanted and leased houses are covered by that tie. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that any threat to the tied arrangement—which, in theory, could end in 1997—could undermine the existence of many thousands of British pubs? Is it not time to say that Brussels has no business interfering in British public house arrangements? We should say that now robustly, before we get involved in consultations which threaten those arrangements, and we must confirm that Britain has no intention of ending those arrangements in 1997 or at any other time.
The President of the Board of Trade has responsibility in that area and I am sure that he will look after the interests of the brewing industry as well as those of the entire United Kingdom industry.
I am glad that the Commission has adopted new guidelines for issuing new directives, which include proper consultation with the industry and with businesses affected before the directives are introduced.Water Companies (Charter Marks)
7.
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many water companies have received charter marks; and if he will make a statement. [9985]
Five water companies have won charter marks: Anglian Water, Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water in 1992 and Welsh Water and South Staffordshire Water in 1993.
In view of the appalling record of water companies in providing services to their customers and the fact that people in Yorkshire have suffered more than many others, will the Minister assure me that Yorkshire Water will not qualify for a charter mark and that others, such as Severn Trent Water, should have their charter marks withdrawn because of the appalling service to their customers?
Water companies will have the opportunity to apply for charter marks in 1996, but, in order to win one, they will have to show that they have maintained the highest quality of service to customers. If they have not managed to achieve that, they certainly will not receive a charter mark.
Does my hon. Friend agree that after years of neglect in the public sector, water companies have taken the opportunity of massive capital investment to improve infrastructure and water quality? Will he give particular credit to Thames Water, which has invested £2 billion in the past five years to improve water for Londoners?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is revealing to compare the conspicuously dry summer of 1995, when there were 53 drought orders, with the previous hot summer of 1976, when there were 136 drought orders. That is a testament to the improvement in the quality of service after privatisation.
Ministerial Responsibilities
8.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received about his responsibilities. [9986]
None, other than from Opposition Members.
In view of the Deputy Prime Minister's welcome initiative in raising the subject of law and order at the weekend, will he confirm that in 1979, under the last Labour Government, the number of offences was 2,540,000 and that in 1994, after 15 years of Tory government, the figure was 5,040,000? In the Deputy Prime Minister's own language, clearly villains love Tory Governments. As Britain was unarguably a much safer place in the 1970s, will he devote his energy and attention to answering a simple question to which we all need an answer: why has crime rocketed under the Tories?
The hon. Gentleman should be fully aware that recorded crime shows the largest ever fall in a two-year period. That is in no small measure the result of legislation introduced- by the Government in the teeth of Labour opposition.
May I make representations to my right hon. Friend about his responsibilities and suggest that his job will be far easier if he continues making the Opposition angry by pointing out how they have obstructed the Government's law and order policies at every twist and turn?
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely what I did and the result is to send the Opposition into mayhem. They thought that they would get away with repeated one-off opposition until someone added their comments together, to show that they have consistently resisted the Government's policies to deal with rising crime.
Are not some of my colleagues being rather naive when they criticise the Deputy Prime Minister for his remarks yesterday? Is it not quite clear there is no lie, no innuendo and no smear that the Government will not use to get re-elected? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister see the difference between the Cabinet Minister who resigned on principle over Westland and walked out of a Cabinet meeting and the same Cabinet Minister who today is quite happy in the political sewers using every possible political smear against any proposal?
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so upset, but the truth is often inconvenient.
In advising the Government on their future policies, will my right hon. Friend encourage them to avoid Labour's greatest hypocrisy—the adoption of the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would destroy jobs and businesses?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I remember correctly, the deputy leader of the Labour party said that any fool knows that a minimum wage will cost jobs. Coming out of the mouth of the deputy leader, that seems a pretty accurate description of the position.
Following the Deputy Prime Minister's descent into the campaign gutter yesterday and the recent reining-in of the Secretary of State for Scotland after his misuse of civil servants and public funds in his campaigning against Labour in Scotland, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an undertaking this afternoon that those abuses will not be allowed to continue as the Tories' lies and smears against Labour mount as the election approaches—as inevitably they will?
I know that the leader of the Labour party talks only to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), but I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman would send the hon. Member for Hartlepool here to eclipse his own deputy leader—a most extraordinary situation. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, whose electioneering techniques have been the subject of great interest on both sides of the House, that nobody has brought more professional skill to the debasement of British public life than the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an early and thorough presentation of Government education policy, to make it clear that, although this Government have always supported the principle of setting and streaming in schools, that is in marked contrast to the policy adopted by Labour Members, who have often denigrated and condemned that approach?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter because I understand that it is to be the subject of a major speech by the leader of the Labour party tonight, in which he will advocate something called accelerated learning—which, in any other language, is streaming. The leader of the Labour party gave his views, or at least what were his views, in June last year. He said—
Order. Reading.
Order. I will decide whether the Minister is in order.
It is not just what the Minister has to say, Madam Speaker—
Order. As far as I am concerned, it is what the Minister has to say at the Dispatch Box today.
This is what the leader of the Labour party had to say—
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Order. There can be no points of order during questions and the hon. Gentleman is aware of that.
The House must know that the views of the leader of the Labour party on streaming are of major interest to the House. He said—[Interruption.]
Order. The Minister was asked a question and he is attempting to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was out of order."] It is for me to determine whether the question was in or out of order, and it was in order. The Minister will answer it.
I am grateful, Madam Speaker. The leader of the Labour party said on 23 June 1995:
Yet tonight, that is to be the major theme of a major speech. That is not so much a case of accelerated learning as one of accelerated hypocrisy."Streaming, with its rigid distribution of children into bright, average and backward camps, is a waste of talent."
Civil Service Morale
9.
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on morale in the civil service. [9987]
Morale in the civil service is best maintained by allowing staff to perform to the best of their abilities in the career that they have chosen. This Government's civil service reforms enable staff to focus their attention on delivering high-quality public services. That is the best way of satisfying them and the users of their services.
Surely the Minister is being complacent. Does he not realise that civil servants' morale has been sapped because of Government changes? The Government have created a climate of insecurity. Does not the Minister agree with Sir Robin Butler, head of the civil service, who wrote that in an article in The Observer recently?
The Government have a fine record of reforming the civil service. Inevitably, nobody nowadays can be offered a job for life but, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister explained in a speech last week, we have a fine record and we are pursuing our reform agenda.
Will my hon. Friend tell the House what has happened to the numbers in the civil service? Sometimes people outside suspect that one party in the House is more interested in jobs for the boys than in getting value for money for the taxpayer.
There were 735,000 civil servants in 1979 and there are now 506,000 civil servants. The number will go below 500,000 this year, and that shows that the Government are serious about cutting overhead costs.
What is the Minister's response to Sir Robin Butler's charge that low morale and the climate of insecurity are caused by perpetual reorganisation imposed by Tory Government? Has not morale plummeted further because of the Deputy Prime Minister's scorched earth policy in pursuing privatisation to ludicrous lengths, for example with Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency, which has been so roundly condemned by Lords Bancroft and Hunt?
We published a White Paper in 1994 on the civil service called "The Civil Service—Continuity and Change", which made it clear that the Government are committed to a high-quality civil service that will also be smaller and more committed to numeracy and technical skills. Many civil servants welcome the reform agenda that the Government are pursuing.
We expect improvement and reduction in overhead costs in the private sector and there is no reason why the Government should not ensure that their house matches the quality of service in the private sector. That is what we are doing.What would happen to the morale of a civil service team if the deputy leader of that team was left out of all considerations and discussions because he was thought not to be intellectually up to it?
I dread to think what would happen to the civil service in the event of a Labour Government, and especially what would happen if the personal press officer of the Leader of the Opposition were put in charge of the Government's information service.
Government Policy
10.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of his time spent on ministerial duties is devoted to promoting Government policies. [9988]
Whatever time I judge necessary.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that since he took up his position in July last year and devoted so much time to promoting Government policy, the Gallup 9000 public opinion poll has been registering a constant lead of more than 25 per cent. for the Labour party? Is the reason for the Deputy Prime Minister's dismal failure to promote the Government because the policies he is promoting are no good, or is it that he is no good at promoting the policies, or is it a combination of the two?
If the failure to promote Government policies had been acute as the hon. Member suggests, the Labour party would not have been thrown into the abject pandemonium that we have seen in the past four days.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has an easy job because our policies are clear and understood? Does my right hon. Friend, who is a kindly man, feel some sense of compassion for Opposition Members who will have to cluster around the tape machine this evening to try to discover what their policy is on testing, selection and streaming in schools?
I do feel compassion for them, and that is why I spend so much of my time explaining Labour party policy for them.
The accelerated learning proposals of the leader of the Labour party give us a new version of Labour's stakeholder society. I read in The Times today that our best teachers would be sent to the worst schools. Britain's best teachers would have to take a stake in Labour's worst schools, while the children of Labour leaders would get a stake in the Tories' best schools. That is another example of accelerated hypocrisy.I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can tell the House when the Scott inquiry report will be published.
I do not have a date to give the House today, but I believe that the House realises that Sir Richard Scott's report is likely to reach the Government in the not too distant future.
Will my right hon. Friend monitor the teaching of moral education at St. Olave's and the London Oratory schools? Does he think that the teachers at those schools will teach their pupils "to do as I say" or "to do as I do"?
I would not wish to interfere in the excellent teaching standards that those schools enjoy. The parents concerned have exercised exactly the choice that I think that the vast majority of parents would exercise in their position. It is difficult to understand, however, how the Labour party would deny parents the chance to exercise such choice, which self-evidently is the sort of choice that its leaders want to adopt.
Foreign Companies
11.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to issue further regulation in respect of the activities of foreign companies operating in the United Kingdom. [9989]
The Government have no plans for further regulation of foreign companies operating in the United Kingdom because we do not wish to jeopardise our record of attracting substantial overseas investment.
The Minister will know of the appalling and entirely unregulated activities of Campbell Soups of America, including those in my constituency, where it shut down a perfectly profitable factory. The Minister will know also of the national boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products. Will he join me in expressing the view that Safeway, Sainsbury and Tesco have a solution to the affair? If they say in the marketplace, to Campbell Soups, that enough is enough, it will be forced to reverse its decision.
The hon. Gentleman's clarity and consistency on this matter is in striking contrast to the behaviour of Labour Members on most policy issues. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, there was not a qualifying merger under fair trading legislation. There is, therefore, no basis on which the Government have any powers to intervene in what was a straightforward commercial decision.
Overseas Development
Aid Budget
26.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the size of the overseas aid budget in 1996–97. [10007]
We always receive a large number of representations from hon. Members and the general public, and this year is no exception.
I have received many letters from my constituents in Ribble Valley about the overseas aid budget, which I have passed on to my right hon. Friend. Does he believe that the interest shown by my constituents and those of other hon. Members reflects the interest that the British people wish to see the Government demonstrating in maintaining a high level of spending within the overseas aid programme while ensuring that every pound of that money is spent effectively so that we can be proud of our overseas aid programme?
My hon. Friend is right. Britain's aid programme is the fifth largest in the world. It is one of the most effective of all the official programmes. The Government are committed to maintaining a large and effective aid programme with the aim of reducing poverty and creating a more prosperous and stable world. I believe that the United Kingdom people join us in that.
The fundamental expenditure review does not square with the Minister's description. "Narrow focus" is a smokescreen for cuts. It is no good repeating parrot fashion that we are fifth in the list of donors when we have fallen to 13th place in the real terms of gross national product.
What response does the Minister expect from countries in central and southern America, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, and especially Commonwealth countries, which will receive no aid from Britain under the fundamental expenditure review? The review is a betrayal of those countries. The Prime Minister said that we would maintain an aid programme of which we could be proud. We must be ashamed of the present policy.As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The fundamental expenditure review contained the recommendation of concentration of effort in priority countries, continuing a process of focus already under way. There will be no radical change and we shall not neglect traditional partners. In 1994–95, 70 per cent. of our bilateral programme concentrated on the 20 largest recipients. We currently give aid to 160 countries.
There is no doubt that the bilateral programme will face reductions during the survey period—we have admitted that—as we switch to multilateral aid. The FER is not in the slightest the slashing of budgets that the hon. Gentleman says that it is. If he wants to know about the slashing of budgets, let me tell him that Italy's expenditure on aid fell by 36 per cent. last year, Canada reduced its aid by 20.5 per cent., and the United States provides only 0.15 per cent. of its gross national product as aid. Perhaps those are the sort of programmes that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are proud of our aid. We are, and will remain, the fifth biggest donor.I warmly welcome the fundamental expenditure review, as we shall have to make difficult choices in the coming years. I am in no doubt that the quality of our aid programme is the finest in the world, but will my right hon. Friend explain how we shall fit into a new relationship with the European Union's aid programme, which is of inferior quality and dilutes our traditional aid effort into parts of the world with which we have precious little in common?
I understand what my hon. Friend says. The FER's conclusions are only recommendations, and we are considering how policies should be changed to respond to them. The FER has confirmed the basic rationale and thrust of the aid programme, the continuing need for concessional aid, and the desirability of the Overseas Development Administration to continue to have responsibility for all aid in the ODA. I am very proud indeed that more of our officials from the ODA are helping out in the European Commission to ensure that the multilateral aid that is given by Europe is given effectively and efficiently, as our bilateral programme is.
Rwanda
27.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is currently giving to the Government of Rwanda. [10008]
Since January 1995, Britain has committed £11 million bilaterally and £8.5 million as our share of multilateral aid in support of the Rwandan Government's programme of rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Is the Minister aware that more than 55,000 people—some of them children—are in prison in Rwanda awaiting trial on charges of genocide? Is he aware that aid agencies and the United Nations now consider the primary priority to be to get the judiciary functioning in Rwanda so that we can reconstruct and rehabilitate the whole of its society? Is he further aware that the Minister of Justice in Rwanda requested, more than three months ago, that the international community provide some 678 judicial personnel-303 judges, 300 prosecutors and 75 police officers—so that they can begin to process the 55,000-plus prisoners? How have the Government responded to that request?
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a tremendous job to be done in Rwanda. We have seen, in the weekend newspapers, further stories of atrocities, and the war crimes tribunal has been set up to try to deal with the matter. We understand that it now has sufficient funding for start-up costs, pending approval of a budget by the UN General Assembly. The United Kingdom has seconded three police officers to work for the prosecutor's office, and we have pledged £200,000 towards that and other costs. Trials are expected shortly. The judicial procedure will inevitably take some time if the trials are to be fair and thorough. The prosecutor will decide whom to try. It is likely that the tribunal will prosecute the ringleaders, while the Government of Rwanda will deal with the remaining suspects.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating those who have worked so hard in Rwanda and other parts of central and eastern Africa on water aid? Is he aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that our aid is the most effective of its kind in Europe? Is it not a case of, "It's not the size of it that counts; it's what you do with it"?
Indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right about the need for good water; it is essential. The House might be interested to know that we recently sent our first-ever British ambassador to Rwanda. She took up her duties in Kigali in December and is also accredited to Burundi. I believe that that is a sign of our support for the Rwandan Government's efforts to promote reconciliation and rehabilitation, and to remain closely engaged in the problems of the Great Lakes region.
Central America
28.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what examination he has made of the effects of structural adjustment programmes on the economies of central America and the role of the British aid programme. [10009]
We regularly examine the effects of structural adjustment programmes in different regions, both in consultation with the World bank and independently. In central America and elsewhere, they are laying the basis for sustainable economic growth, a prerequisite for poverty alleviation.
Is the Minister aware that the fundamental expenditure review undertaken by his Department seems to give automatic support to structural adjustment programmes advanced by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, and that structural adjustment programmes throughout central America, in the wake of the end of the civil wars, are unbelievably destructive of human life? They are reducing life expectancy, increasing poverty and malnutrition and leading to considerable social discord and unrest. Is it not time to abandon the nonsense of such programmes, and to plan for the social needs of people in those countries rather than imposing market economics on them?
Two thirds of the population of Nicaragua, for instance, are now living in serious poverty, and unemployment has more than doubled in the past three years. Does the Minister think that structural adjustment programmes have something to answer for in relation to those terrible figures?Sound economic policies are a key prerequisite for sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and adjustment programmes are designed to help developing countries to implement policy reforms in order to restore growth and strengthen institutions. The evidence from successive reviews shows that effective reform programmes are associated with reduced poverty, and inadequate programmes with worsening poverty. The ODA recognises the need to consider the social impact of adjustment programmes on the poor—indeed, we do consider it—and the World bank is working to improve the collection of information, and to improve policies for reducing poverty. The ODA has supported that work by seconding two consecutive social development advisers to the World bank since 1990. Let me repeat that sound economic policies are the key prerequisite for sustainable growth and poverty reduction.
Are not the structural adjustment programmes allowing the countries concerned to return to proper economies? Combined with the overseas aid programmes involving investment in projects, would that not allow people to earn a living and self-respect, rather than having to rely on the begging bowl that seems to be the only alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?
My hon. Friend is, perhaps, the most knowledgeable of hon. Members in regard to the region that we are discussing, and he is absolutely right.
Tanzania, Kenya And Uganda
29.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British international aid was provided in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [10010]
In 1994–95, we provided the three countries combined with well over £100 million under our bilateral aid programme. In addition to that is our share of multilateral aid, which in 1993—the last year for which figures are available—was £48 million. The figures for 1995-96, for which the hon. Gentleman asked, are likely to be similar, but we do not have them at present.
In the light of developments in Uganda and Tanzania in particular, is the Minister prepared to increase the amount of aid? Both countries are making efforts to transform their economies. Will the Minister also put pressure on the Kenyan Government to reintroduce human rights, so that we can continue to help people in that country as well?
The hon. Gentleman speaks for many hon. Members. Of course, we shall spend what money we can afford. My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is in Tanzania today for discussions with the new Government, and will shortly report on what she finds there. We welcome the Tanzanian Government's intentions to enter a new phase of economic reform and to deal with corruption, but it is important for those good intentions to be instituted into action to restore donor and investor confidence.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Kenya. Our project assistance focuses strongly on support for economic and financial reform, and programme aid will also be available if that reform proceeds. There has also been an energetic economic reform programme for Uganda, which has achieved significant economic growth as a result—over 5 per cent. per annum since 1987, and an estimated 10 per cent. last year.Will good government considerations form part of the Government's view as to the appropriate overseas aid level for the three countries concerned?
Yes, I can confirm that they will.
China
30.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has given to China to improve provision for orphanages. [10011]
We have provided support to the Save the Children Fund for a project in Anhui aimed at extending and refurbishing a kindergarten for both able and mentally and physically disabled children, and to Health Unlimited for a training programme for mother and child health workers. Total funds committed are around £250,000. We also contribute to UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—which has just announced a programme to assist the orphanages that are most at risk.
I welcome the contributions, such as they are, but they are just not enough, are they? Does the Minister recall the television images of the children tied to stools—some of them left to die—in Chinese orphanages? Does he agree with my constituents and me that those merit the strongest representations to the Chinese Government, that those conditions are intolerable in any society—any civilised one at least—and that the British Government will expect the Chinese Government to prevent such images from ever appearing on our television screens or in any orphanage in China again, and will continue to monitor the position?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I saw the television programme and was disturbed by it. The "Human Rights Watch" report of ill-treatment of abandoned children in China contained serious allegations. The Channel 4 programme also presented a profoundly disturbing picture. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Peking earlier this month, he strongly urged the Chinese authorities to investigate those allegations fully and quickly. The Chinese Foreign Minister told him that those reports were untrue and the Foreign Secretary encouraged the Chinese Government to do everything possible to demonstrate that, including providing full access to the public. That has begun to happen.
Even at Chongming, which was previously not open to the public, European Union diplomats have had access within the past few days. I also welcome the willingness of the Chinese authorities to allow further visits to any of the institutions in Shanghai, and their offer to provide further data. Obviously, however, it was difficult to form a complete picture during the short pre-arranged visit. The EU diplomats reported no evidence of systematic ill-treatment or abuse at that institution but we will, of course, continue to urge full access by Chinese and foreigners alike to those institutions. It is the only way to ensure that those terrible scenes do not continue.I welcome the assistance of my right hon. Friend's Department to the charitable endeavours in Chinese orphanages, but will he use the good offices of his Department to persuade the People's Republic of China not to waste money on naval expansion programmes, a nuclear missile armoury and, above all, repression in Tibet, and to concentrate on putting its own house in order, in particular by offering a reasonable standard of living, especially for orphaned children?
My hon. Friend is right. At least 100 million people still live in abject poverty in China. It is right that it should recognise that the world is watching. If it wishes to play a full part in the modern world in the years to come, it must demonstrate that it can look after its own people properly. The issues to which my hon. Friend referred affect us all. After all, we are deeply concerned about reports of abuses of human rights in Tibet. There is destruction of historic buildings, the immigration of the Han Chinese, arbitrary security measures and environmental damage. We raise those issues with the Chinese authorities: the last time the Chinese Foreign Minister came to England, I was part of the delegation that raised them with him, as I do with the ambassador regularly and as the Foreign Secretary did with the Chinese Foreign Minister on 9 January.
Sri Lanka
31.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements currently exist for the delivery of aid to the northern regions of Sri Lanka. 110012]
Aid is being provided through the Sri Lankan Government, international organisations and non-governmental organisations. Over and above our regular support for rehabilitation in the north, we have recently provided an additional £350,000 for programmes run by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by Christian Action, Research and Education; and an additional £690,000 for Oxfam. We also contributed £350,000 through the European Union.
I am sure that the Minister acknowledges that there is enormous need in the north, following the fighting towards the end of last year when several hundred thousand people were driven from their homes. Do the Government of Sri Lanka still insist that all aid to the north is delivered through them and their agencies, or are they now allowing agencies such as the UN to deliver directly to the north? Plainly, many people in the north will be extremely suspicious of the practice of all aid having to go through the Government.
Yes, I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I can confirm that, for instance, the ICRC is taking provisions, both medical aid and food aid, by ship to the north. I was at Vavuniya, which is not far from Jaffna, just a few months ago and I saw the main road along which aid is taken. I understand that the Government of Sri Lanka now believe that sufficient aid and medical supplies are getting through to the north. I took this opportunity to plead with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to meet the Sri Lankan Government to discuss their plan for autonomy within Sri Lanka. Only by discussion can permanent peace be brought to that otherwise beautiful island, which has been so scarred in recent years.
Church Commissioners
Investments
36.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals the commissioners have to improve the ethical content of their investment. [10017]
The commissioners' investments, as I told the hon. Gentleman when he last raised the subject a few weeks ago, have always been subject to ethical criteria and are continuously reviewed. The ethical working group set up in October 1994 plays an important part in keeping under review the ethical investment policy of the Church Commissioners and of the Church's two other main investing bodies, the Central Board of Finance and the Church of England pensions board.
The commissioners deserve the congratulations of the House on the decision that they were reported to have taken in November when they sold 2 million shares in BSkyB because of its investment in a pornographic television channel. When will the commissioners deal with their investment in another, more dangerous, obscenity—the international arms trade? It was reported recently that they had nearly 3 million shares in GEC. A quarter of that firm's production is for the arms trade and it has been reported that the commissioners have discussed with it its exports to Indonesia and Nigeria. Did such a meeting take place and, if so, what was the outcome?
The hon. Gentleman's question covers a wide spectrum. We are investors in GEC, whose armaments portfolio is held to be less than 30 per cent., which is just about the cut-off point for our ethical application. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the five permanent members of the Security Council have reaffirmed, and continue to reaffirm, the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence that is recognised in article 51 of the United Nations charter, which implies that states have the right to acquire the means for legitimate self-defence. Nevertheless, the Church of England does not invest in companies whose main business is armaments. It has to be less than 30 per cent.
Does the Church intend to increase its investment in inner cities? Is its view that the Government should do the same?
The Church urban fund, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is a very important but, nevertheless, by statute a subordinate part of the claims on the income of the Church of England. Although we shall do everything possible to sustain our cash flow into the Church urban fund, pensions and stipends of clergy and their dependants must remain statutorily the overriding priority. Incidentally, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the capital value of our total assets has risen to £2.6 billion from £2.1 billion or less 10 years ago.
Cyclists
37.
To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what is his policy in respect of charging cyclists for the use of Church Commission land. [10018]
The Church Commissioners make no charge for cyclists using legal rights of way across their land.
Is the reason why the Church Commissioners are refusing to allow the completion of the Totnes to Buckfastleigh cycle route that they can get more revenue from fishermen fishing in the River Dart than they could possibly get from cyclists going across Church Commissioners' land? If that is the case, would not one of the best ways to reduce the £800 million loss that resulted from the property collapse, and the property speculation, in the 1990s be to charge cyclists a toll as they cycle across Church Commissioners' land?
My hon. Friend is quite right to pinpoint the importance of fishing rights as a source of income to this essential charitable fund, whose beneficiaries, I remind him, are clergy and their dependants. In relation to that particular stretch of territory in his constituency, I doubt whether the toll that we could levy on cyclists passing that delectable spot would be payable by them or that they would agree to pay it if it were set at a level that would raise the same amount of money that we receive from letting the fishing rights. I am afraid that cyclists might bash through and we would have very little power or control to prevent them from doing so in trying to levy a toll.
Points Of Order
3.30 pm
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you the usual notice of this point of order, but frankly it is one of the problems of the peripatetic Scottish Grand Committee, which was in Stirling this morning.
It may be within your recollection that, at column 483 in business questions on Thursday, the Leader of the House said that the President of France was laying it open for experts to monitor French nuclear testing. Has there been any statement, or request for a statement, from any Minister, given particularly the urgent responsibilities that we have in this House towards the Pitcairn islanders, the nearest community to Mururoa where the testing is taking place? Do not the widely reported leaks of iodine 131, strontium 90 and caesium 137 show that France's statements that the rocks would in no way leak are false? In those circumstances, should not a Minister make a statement?rose—
Is it on the same point?
Yes, it is. It is very disturbing that there have now been six French nuclear tests. If you recall, Madam Speaker, I asked you on a point of order on the occasion of the first test whether it was possible to have a debate or a statement on the issue. You very kindly allowed myself and others to take part in an Adjournment debate the following week.
Despite the fact that there have been six tests, the Government have never made a statement on the matter. This must be one of the very few Parliaments in the world that has not heard a proper statement from the Government on the matter. I wonder whether, through any office whatever, we can be assured that at some stage the Government will be accountable for their very strong support of Chirac.I know that both hon. Gentlemen are aware that I cannot give any guarantee that a statement on this issue will be made by the Government. Of course I understand the concern about the matter, which, as was rightly said, has been previously raised with me. Indeed, we have had a Adjournment debate on it. It seems that hon. Members have raised a matter of concern to them, not so much a point of order for the Chair. As the House knows, I deal with procedure. There is no doubt that Members sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard what has been said and the concern expressed, and will report back to the appropriate authorities.
I tabled a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, which was accepted on to the Order Paper. I was then told that the question was to be transferred, even though it dealt with Government policy and the sharing of information between Departments. I should be grateful for some guidance on which questions the Deputy Prime Minister answers.
I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the transfer of questions is entirely a matter for Ministers, not for the Clerks in the Table Office or for me. Ministers determine whether questions remain with them or are transferred to another Department.
Orders Of The Day
Housing Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Before I call the Secretary of State, I must announce that speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm will have to be limited to 10 minutes.
3.35 pm
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When we published our housing White Paper last summer, we made clear our continuing commitment to a decent home for every family. We said that we remained committed to meeting that objective in the face of the social and economic changes and the environmental concerns that place new and increasing demands on government. The Housing Bill extends opportunity. It will mean that more housing association tenants will have the opportunity to buy their own homes, that leaseholders will have stronger and more accessible protection, and that council tenants will have the opportunity to vote for new types of social landlords, who can bring in private money to improve their estates. Conservative Members have shown that housing issues can be approached with imagination. We have not simply fallen back on the tired old policies of building municipal estates: "Never mind the quality; measure the quantity; count the cost". The Conservative party brought in the right to buy—1.3 million households in England wanted that right, and took the opportunity that was given to them. Each day, 200 households go on wanting that right. The Labour party voted against that opportunity. We are also the party that brought in private finance alongside public money to improve our council estates. We brought in competition to provide housing, with housing associations competing to provide it at the best price. That means better housing at a cheaper price, and more of it than would otherwise have been the case. We brought in new rights for tenants, and gave them a greater say in how their estates are run. The Labour party says that it wants those things, but it voted solidly against every one of them. It says one thing and does another.I agree with absolutely everything that my right hon. Friend said about our housing policy, but I should like to press him on one point, which I may have missed. In the housing White Paper, we proposed to legislate to allow profit-making companies and other bodies to compete for the grants available to those in social housing. Will my right hon. Friend explain whether that is in the Bill, or whether we are planning to introduce it later?
We have said that the needs of leaseholders are more important in the immediate term, and we have to deal with them. We are therefore producing a separate Bill that covers that issue, which I hope will soon be introduced. There is no question of dropping it. However, decisions on leasehold problems, particularly in London and the south coast resorts, are so serious that they should be taken immediately. That is therefore covered in the Bill.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman, because I have one or two things to say to him in particular.
We published our White Paper last summer and have now introduced the Bill. The Opposition, of course, did not publish their own policy document, despite the many promises that they would do so, and that it would be bigger, better and certainly more expensive than ours. They leaked ours in order to pretend that they had one. When they were pressed about it at the Housing Corporation conference in February 1995—I stress that date—the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said:that is, last—"A new approach is called for and over the next few months Frank Dobson and I will be working up detailed housing policy proposals which the Labour party will be publishing later this"—
We are less than three weeks away from the anniversary of that statement. When will we get Labour's housing policy? Why has it taken so long? Has the hon. Member for Greenwich been unable to get the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to understand it? Has the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—having taken some time to understand the policy—not been able to get his Treasury team to agree to it? Or is it merely that Labour does not have a clue as to what it would do if anybody was ever silly enough to ask it to take charge? Does Labour want to stick with saying and never doing? The hon. Member for Greenwich said that he was going to produce a policy in a few months. That was good enough to allow him to get away with it in front of an audience, but it is not good enough for the people of Britain who want to know what Labour would do. I have taken some time to look at the one piece of Labour policy that I have discovered so far—that, somehow or other, Labour would release the accumulated receipts so that they could be spent. That is the one thing that Labour has said, but it has not explained until recently what that would mean. It would mean not that a Labour Government would allow councils to spend their receipts, but that some councils would be allowed to spend other councils' receipts. We have now discovered that, carefully hidden in Labour's policy, is a proposal that the arrangement of phasing would mean that the Labour council in the Wyre, for example, would be asked to spend its receipts in, let us say, Gateshead. So when a council leader says, "We will release the receipts," he thinks that the receipts will be released for the people of the Wyre, Bracknell Forest, Dacorum or any of the other places that are temporarily in Labour control. That is what the councils think, but Labour would actually give permission for those receipts to be spent somewhere else. Labour's policy has been rumbled. Inside Housing, a newspaper not entirely in favour of the Conservative cause, asked what would happen to the interest that is now going to the local authority that has the receipts when those receipts are spent. The newspaper said that, if there were a Labour Government, councils could refuse to use billions of pounds of capital receipts unless they got an extra subsidy from the Labour Government to pay for the interest they were losing. Hidden in the only bit of Labour policy that works in the minds of the public is the fact that it would, in absolute truth, hold back receipts from councils to make sure that it could subsidise the spendthrift by nationalising the receipts of those councils which have done their job properly."year."
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept—as he must, since he has no evidence to the contrary—that everything he has said in the past five minutes is absolutely untrue, and that he has made it all up?
No. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Labour would not allow the leafy suburbs to spend the money, because that would be the only way in which it would he able to provide the extra money for the councils to which it wants to give money. That is precisely what Labour intends to do. The housing press has revealed precisely what Labour did not want to be admitted or publicised. It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman was so quick on to his feet—he knows that he has been rumbled.
Order. I hope that we can get on to the Second Reading of this Bill.
My question was exactly that, Madam Speaker. Can the Secretary of State answer three simple questions? Will the Bill mean any significant increase in the number of houses for rent; will it mean any significant reduction in the rents of people in housing association properties, as those associations are losing their grant by a greater amount every year; and will it mean any relief for those who have bought their properties from local authorities, particularly in council tower blocks, and who face maintenance, service and capital charges of up to £28,000, which some of them cannot afford?
The first question is dealt with in the Finance Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The second is not part of this Bill, because it is part of others, and the third is one of the issues that we have already taken into account and on which we have taken action.
One of the key arguments about the Bill is that an alternative way exists, which is related centrally to capital receipts. That is why it is crucial for us to deal with that issue at the beginning, and it is why I gave way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I wanted to have the opportunity to tell the House what his party said about his policy. He has said:That means, according to the party's Whips Office, that the Liberal Democrats' weaknesses are as follows, first,"Liberal Democrats have no ideological attachment to public or private housing."
Secondly, it states:"we haven't got a particularly strong or new line on housing."
the very point that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had the cheek to question me on a moment ago. So the Liberal Democrats admit that their policy would make the present situation worse. Lastly, the Liberal Whips state:"our intention to phase out MIRAS will cripple mortgage payers and exacerbate negative equity"—
which is what the hon. Gentleman asked about—"our policy on helping home owners suffering from negative equity"—
That is what the Liberal party says about its policy, and I must thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to mention it, in case he did not have the opportunity to do so."is expensive and ill-thought out".
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
In one moment.
The Government are facing up to the real issues. We are asking the hard questions, and giving the tough answers that need to be given. We are facing the challenge to set up fair systems that help those who need it most, concentrating our resources effectively, and helping those who can house themselves to do so affordably. We are giving them rights and responsibilities. To ensure that that will continue, we are introducing a second Bill, which will include measures to improve construction contracts and reform renovation grants. That Bill will be widely welcomed.rose—
Before I give way, I want to explain what I want to do in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We need to ensure that we have a fair way of allocating the housing we have for social purposes. We want not several queues but one waiting list, with people judged according to their need. That is what the system is meant to do.
Some people have temporary needs, and others long-term needs. The allocation of long-term social housing should depend on long-term needs, and not merely on people's short-term needs. People on the waiting lists for council and housing association housing need to know that they are being treated fairly. At the moment there is a problem. Some people who need housing are in the right category, and others are not but are in greater need. All the Bill does is to ensure that people are judged according to their needs. To each according to his need—or is that another philosophy that the Labour party has thrown out? That is what the Bill is intended to do, as any sane person would recognise.rose—
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), as he rose first.
When the Secretary of State has finished his swashbuckling fun of knocking the Labour and Liberal parties, will he address the criticism made by the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales, who have referred to the Bill as "ill-timed", and drawn hon. Members' attention to our Christian obligation to have regard for families and the disadvantaged? The bishops regard the Bill, especially part VII, as repugnant. What does he have to say to those caring people with a pastoral role, who have no political axe to grind, who consider the Bill to be unacceptable and uncaring?
I would point to the guidance notes that were produced last Thursday. They said that the categories to which the Roman Catholic bishops drew attention are the very categories that will be at the top of the list for the measurements of need. We have met every single criticism that the bishops put forward. The only thing that was ill-timed was the fact that they did not wait for the guidance notes so that they could see that what they had feared was untrue. Those who misled the bishops had better explain to them why they did so.
We particularly included a provision that concern should be taken for married couples who have waited to have children because the conditions in which they lived were unsuitable for having them. I am sure that His Eminence and the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops will be pleased at that attitude which, for the first time, is expressed in our documentation. The Bill provides for a single waiting list route into social housing, but with the first priority for the most vulnerable.Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I ought to get on a little further, but I shall come back to the hon. Lady because I am always willing to hear from the Liberal party, given what it has said about its own housing policy.
At the same time that we bring up to date the criteria for the allocation of long-term social housing, we are keeping an effective safety net for homeless households. Families and vulnerable people who are unintentionally homeless would be given a minimum of one year's accommodation, with further help where needed. In many areas, one year will be more than enough for a household with real needs to get permanent accommodation allocated through the waiting list, but it is much more sensible to give people immediate help—the help that is available—and then try to assess what the best help is in the circumstances of those people. Any sane person would accept that.rose—
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), because she rose first.
How can the Bill, which will create a longer waiting list, deal with the basic need, which is the gross lack of decent, affordable housing? Will the Minister define what an "unreal need" is for a family without a home?
A family without a home gets a greater advantage if its homelessness is statutory and categorisable than does a family with appalling accommodation, which is in a much worse position. The second family would not get a home. The first family gets a home first simply because it is in the right category. I am merely saying that we should judge cases by need.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate says that we have a longer waiting list; that is not true. We have a waiting list based upon the principle of need instead of one based upon those who are lucky enough, if that is the right word, to be in the right category. Such families always beat others, who may be in worse conditions, on local authority housing waiting lists. If she would leave her doctrine aside and look at the facts of need, she would find that what we say is right. She will never oppose the system once it is in operation, because she will see that it works properly.At present, a family with priority need, which will often be a family with children, is entitled to rehousing as a homeless family. Such families still have the great trauma of having to move home, and, especially, of their children having to change schools, but will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the new legislation, they would have to move once to temporary accommodation, and, with no choice at all, have to move home for a second time within 12 months? Will he confirm that that will not only cause housing disruption but education, social and every other sort of disruption?
That is not true. If a family was in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, it could be moved directly into permanent accommodation. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. As always, he has been reading his own propaganda, not the statements of the Government.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that all local authorities should be obliged to provide the temporary accommodation required within their own area? Will he bear in mind problems experienced in places like Southend-on-Sea, where for many years other authorities have had the habit of putting their homeless families into temporary accommodation, making Southend's problems worse?
Under the Bill, local authorities will be able to refer people to their local authority of origin, which is one of the issues that my hon. Friend is concerned about. I hope that he agrees that, if we are to deal with need, we must ensure that people get the accommodation they need.
While some people find that decision difficult. to make right at the beginning, others have acute immediate needs that may not continue for long. Still others have an immediate need for permanent accommodation, which is clear to their local authority. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) would wish, such people can be accorded that permanent accommodation. We must be concerned for homeless people, not for some theory of homelessness put forward by the Opposition.Will the Secretary of State give way?
No. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) asked me to give way, and I promised that she would be next. I wish to proceed with a couple more paragraphs of my speech, after which the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to intervene.
Our consultation paper on allocations, published last Thursday, shows our intention to have a fair system that encourages local authorities to stand back and ask who really needs long-term housing, who really needs short-term help, and how they can use existing housing to the best advantage. They can therefore meet the requirement of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. A better use of housing enables more people to be decently housed, which is an important part of what we seek to do.Will the Secretary of State give way?
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch in a moment, and then come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The Secretary of State misled the House.
Order. Did the hon. Gentleman say that the Secretary of State had misled the House? No Minister or Back Bencher misleads the House. Will he withdraw that remark, so that we may proceed with the debate?
I withdraw the remark, Madam Speaker, but it would appear that what the Secretary of State said is at variance with the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that, at some stage, the Secretary of State will allow him to intervene. Am I to understand that the Secretary of State is allowing the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) to intervene?
Yes.
Will the Secretary of State explain his thinking on regulations? Like me, many hon. Members object to Ministers having the power to put measures into practice through regulations. We saw what happened in the case of the Child Support Agency. I do not expect an overnight change, but should not the Bill at least show the criteria that the Secretary of State will use?
Why is the consultation paper going out when we are about to discuss the Bill in Committee? We will not have responses on some of the matters that we are supposed to discuss in Committee.I am concerned that everything should be properly discussed. If the hon. Lady wants better and further particulars on anything, I should be pleased to provide them. That is why I published before Second Reading the proposed criteria in the form of guidance, which we are discussing with local authorities. There is therefore no difference between us on wishing to obtain as much information as possible.
May I say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that I enjoy having a rough and tough discussion, but I do not wish to mislead the House. Let me therefore go through precisely what I was asked. If a local authority has a homeless family, with no roof over its head and in real difficulty, it can move it into any accommodation available. There is no question of children having to change schools, because it will be perfectly possible for the local authority to find the right accommodation and move the family into it permanently in the shortest possible time.I do not suggest for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House, but what he has just said appears to be at variance with clause 161, which says:
for homeless people—"A local housing authority shall not perform any such duty…by providing accommodation"—
again, that would be temporary accommodation—"other than—(a) accommodation in a hostel…or (b) accommodation leased to the authority"—
"for more than two years".
The fact is that we are talking about a particular example of someone who is in desperate need. The hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras tried to suggest that people in desperate need of housing would not receive permanent accommodation, but would be stuck in temporary accommodation.
I say quite clearly that, as soon as that need is discovered, the local authority will provide permanent accommodation if it is available. That is precisely what is occurring. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the situation, and he has not read the legislation properly. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) may laugh, but the Labour party has no policy with which to respond. Although the hon. Lady is new to the Opposition Front Bench, she must know that the issue is clear: accommodation will be available immediately for people with no roof over their heads, if they are suitable applicants for permanent accommodation and they reach the top of the waiting list in that sense. They will receive accommodation because their need is greater than that of someone else. The House now sees what Labour's policy would mean: if a family was on top of the waiting list but it was less needy than another family on that list, it would be housed before the family in greater need. We now see what Labour Members believe in: if people are in the correct category, they will receive housing, and people in need will not receive housing. We believe that families in need should be moved into permanent accommodation as rapidly as possible. That is surely the right way to go. The Labour party is wrong, because it wants to allocate housing according to category and not according to people's needs. It does not care about people's needs; it simply wants people to be in the correct category. The Labour party is not prepared to provide even temporary accommodation to those who are in immediate need, because it wants to stick to categories. That is why the Labour party is wrong.Will my right hon. Friend give way?
I must proceed, but I shall return to my hon. Friend in a moment.
The hon. Member for North-West Durham has got it wrong; she wants to stick to categories—no doubt that is another example of the "stakeholder" concept. The Bill allows us to house people according to their need, which must be the right way to go. I now turn to the question whether council tenants should have the same landlord, regardless of whether that is what they want. We believe that the Bill should allow council tenants to choose new landlords who can unlock the capital that is tied up in council houses and inject private investment, along with public money, in order to improve housing. The new landlords, such as local housing companies, will be not-for-profit bodies regulated by the Housing Corporation. They will be backed by an estates renewal challenge fund worth some £314 million over the next three years. That money will be used to improve many bad estates, if the council tenants choose to have a new landlord. They will make that choice; it will not be imposed upon them. I want to know whether the Labour party will support that measure. It seems a very good way of unlocking capital, which would otherwise not be available, in order to improve those estates.Does that not contradict what the Secretary of State said a few moments ago, as it does not necessarily mean that those houses most in need of improvement will receive the money for that work?
That has nothing to do with the allocations. I am talking about bad, rundown council estates which will be able to raise their standards of housing. Is the hon. Member saying that we should not raise the standards of the worst council estates—which are so bad largely because they have been controlled by Labour authorities which have allowed them to run down, year in, year out, for party political purposes in many cases? There is also the question of extending the measure.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
No: I shall continue my remarks so that the hon. Gentleman may listen and learn about the additional opportunities that the Bill will provide for the public.
The Bill provides a further opportunity to offer people a real choice between renting and ownership. It will give purchase grants to those who live in housing association accommodation, so that they will have the right to buy. It will be a valuable extension of opportunity and people's right to own. I shall be looking very carefully to see whether the Opposition are in favour of extending the right to buy in that way, or whether they refuse it. That will tell us whether they really believe in the right to buy, or whether they merely accept it as convenient for electoral purposes. So far, they have voted against every extension of the right to buy. They do not want people to own; they want them to be governed by the tenancy clauses of local authority housing. The only area in which we consider it better for people not to have the right to buy is the small village, where alternative accommodation is difficult to find. People have often given the land and been granted special planning permission. As we want land to be offered, we feel that that is the right course of action.Will the Minister give way?
No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
Some freeholders use their powers in a wholly unacceptable way and abuse their responsibilities. Many Members have material that shows that to be categorical. I have here a document that I shall certainly place in the Library of the House. It was produced by a management company seeking to frighten leaseholders out of their rights. That is wholly unacceptable, and I do not believe that we should allow it to continue. That is why I have found room in the Bill to address such behaviour, although it meant displacing a matter that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I look forward to bringing before the House.Has my right hon. Friend considered also the scam used by freeholders who charge long leaseholders exorbitant insurance premiums and take the commission on those insurances? Will he accept any changes to the Bill to prevent that being taken into account when the value of the freehold is assessed?
It is important that we look carefully at any suggestions on that complicated matter. My hon. Friend will he pleased to know that the arrangements in the Bill will cover the issue he raises, but if he thinks that we can do better, I am certainly prepared to listen to him.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The amendments to the Bill that he has promised will be extremely welcome to leaseholders in London, particularly those who are suffering badly from the depredations of rogue landlords. One of their greatest problems is the exorbitant cost of enforcing their rights against their freeholders. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any amendments to the Bill are easily and cheaply enforceable, and that the present rights of leaseholders under the leasehold reform legislation are also cheaper to uphold?
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I have suggested that we discuss and consult on our proposal that those matters could be taken out of the hands of the courts and brought before the tribunal. It would be cheaper and easier, and would enable the chairman of the tribunal, who is often a professionally qualified valuer, to use his professional ability—which a judge cannot do. That would help considerably, and I hope that consultation will show it to be the generally accepted view.
Most freeholders behave in a perfectly honourable manner. I am concerned about freeholders such as Bebington and Associates, who write threatening letters. I would also mention the solicitors who support them, and the professional people who claim that their behaviour should be allowed. I hope that we shall have an united view at least on this matter. Those people should not be allowed either to damage the leaseholders or to write down the qualities of good freeholders, many of whom do their job as it ought to be done, and who are as angry as anybody else about how certain operators have acted.I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman—particularly to his remarks about need. How will he decide the categories? What advice will he give housing allocation officers in respect of people who are living in overcrowded or sub-standard conditions, or who have been on the waiting list a long time? We and the public want the answer.
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that, last Thursday, we published the proposed guidelines, a copy of which is in the Library. They bring together all the categories in the legislation, so that the needs of each family can be considered at the same time and on the same basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will like that arrangement, and will have no difficulty with it. It is not for me to say which category comes before another. It is for me to say the matters that a local authority must take into account. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will find that the guidance is acceptable, and he will not need to worry about that.
One matter that divides us, and I am sorry that it does, is that Labour still wants two categories of allocation for need instead of one. Labour will not, even for the shortest possible moment, allow a homeless family to wait while the best way to provide for its need is decided. Instead of saying that that is reasonable, as most people would say, Labour always makes the sort of argument used by the hon. Member for Attercliffe—that a family of two parents and two children would have to stay in temporary accommodation, change schools and then change again. That is not so, as I told the House.Why not?
Because the time spent in temporary accommodation in circumstances of the extreme kind that the hon. Gentleman cited is bound to be short. If such a family comes to the top of the needs list, it will be accommodated. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the family should be rehoused in advance of people who have more need.
rose—
No—I want to continue.
I wish to talk about something else in which the hon. Member for Christchurch is very interested—houses in multiple occupation. We are most concerned that standards in some parts of the private rented sector need to be improved. Some of the worst conditions are found in houses in multiple occupancy—the so-called HMOs. They are typically bedsitters or bed-and-breakfast hostels. Local authorities already have powers to require safety and amenity standards to be met, but the Bill goes further. It strengthens local authority powers to register HMOs and to control conditions. If buildings are unsatisfactory, local authorities can close them down. There are particular concerns in many seaside areas. Former hotels and guest houses have become what are sometimes called benefit hostels. Where they are badly managed or there are too many of them, that can have a serious effect. Considerable nuisance is often caused, and sometimes real danger. Such wholesale changes can alter the character of an area, and damage, for example, the tourist industry on which the area specifically depends. I propose to bring forward amendments to strengthen the Bill's powers further. I propose to allow local authorities to close down HMOs without compensation if they are being run in a way that causes nuisance or annoyance to the neighbourhood. I propose also to allow authorities to prevent new HMOs from opening if to allow additional HMOs would be detrimental to the area. That means that we will cover the whole range of public concerns about buildings that were not meant for the purpose to which they are now being put.I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the Prime Minister for the way in which they have listened to representations from those of us who represent seaside resorts. What my right hon. Friend has just announced will go a long way to meeting the requirements.
Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point? Until now, local authorities have sometimes found serving notice on anybody difficult, because the "anybody" is not clearly defined. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is clearly possible to identify, and if necessary disbar, the manager of such a property, so that it can be closed down and that person can be prevented from running one again?It will certainly be possible under the proposals to close down properties immediately without compensation. I hope that, in the discussion of how registration might work, we can cover the other aspects that my hon. Friend suggests. We need a simple and straightforward system, not one that is too complex and bureaucratic, and one that delivers the goods on safety and the other concerns that I have outlined.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that students form the single category that would be most affected by the proposals? There are huge numbers of students in big cities, and Leeds now has more than 10,000. I welcome my right hon. Friend's appreciation of the fact that, for years, many students have lived in unsafe and poorly maintained accommodation—although, of course, some landlords are fine.
There is legitimate concern that landlords might have to re-register only every five years. Can my right hon. Friend use his discretion and require more frequent registration? To cover the cost, a fee could be charged for it, as it is for an MOT licence.I am happy to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am trying to achieve a balance between too complex a system which would be too unwieldy to operate, and one which is not sufficiently strong. I hope that we have got the right balance, but if my hon. Friend thinks that there are ways in which we can improve it, I shall certainly consider them.
My right hon. Friend will know how welcome the proposals he has just announced will be in Blackpool and other seaside towns. Will he instruct his officials to monitor carefully the operation of those new powers, not only in the Bill but in the further amendments?
There is concern that, in seaside resorts with Labour or Liberal Democrat or Lib-Lab authorities, councillors are reluctant to operate the powers that are already in existence. There are especial concerns, which have been expressed to me by residents' and hoteliers' associations, about the strong links between Labour councillors and some of the unscrupulous landlords. Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials to investigate?The Bill will give local authorities the powers to operate sensibly. The reason we have made the changes in the Bill on giving homes according to need is that we want local authorities to make those decisions themselves. It will be the local authority's fault if people in the categories that have been so far trumpeted abroad find themselves in temporary accommodation for a long time. It will be local authorities that will be in a position to carry out that part of the Bill.
We will monitor the situation carefully, but local authorities should be in the driving seat, and local authorities should not be deprived of the powers they now have over their receipts, as the Labour party wishes. I shall be interested to see how the Labour party will explain that.rose—
Will the Secretary of State give way?
No, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), and then I will come back.
The Secretary of State may recall that, during the passage of the Housing Act 1988, the issues he is raising now were raised then as serious matters for concern—not least the activities of Mr. Hoogstraten. The Secretary of State will also recall that we raised the same concerns that he has mentioned today about freeholders and leaseholders. Why has it taken the Government eight years even to begin to think about acting on those matters, when they rejected our amendments at the time of the passage of the 1988 Act?
The amendments were not as the hon. Gentleman put them forward. The Government are meeting present needs clearly and directly. I am pleased that there is agreement on those matters on both sides of the House. I hope that the Opposition parties will help us to get the Bill through fast, so that, first, we will be able to ensure that families in real need get their homes. Secondly, we will be able to ensure that houses in multiple occupation are covered by better legislation than at the moment. Thirdly, we shall be able to ensure that leaseholders have protection, which they do not have now. All these things can be achieved if the Labour party drops its dogmatic opposition to the Bill and supports us in what we are doing. We shall watch the Opposition and press them. We look forward to hearing what the Labour party's policy is in a few moments.
May I welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend has mentioned? They will be generally welcomed in Bournemouth.
How do the changes, together with the proposals in the original measure, respond to the problems being experienced by local authorities because of a lack of definition of what is a hotel, a hostel or a house in multiple occupation? Lack of definition effectively prevents local authorities from applying the controls that they already have. In responding to problems concerning HMOs, will there be a clear definition in a schedule to enable local authorities better to respond to the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced?There will be a clear definition in the Bill. It will probably appear in a schedule. It will make the position as clear as can be. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is not an easy area in which to introduce provisions and definitions. I have no doubt that there will be discussion in Committee.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
No. I must get on.
The conduct of tenants who are already in place is a matter of considerable concern. We felt that a natural approach would be, first, to ensure that local authorities that so desired would be able to grant a probationary or introductory tenancy of a year to see how the tenant settled down and how others considered that he or she had settled down. It is not an unreasonable idea. I am sorry that the Labour-controlled Association of District Councils is opposed to that. It is a great mistake. The Labour party is supposed to be in favour of taking action. Unfortunately, is opposes the simple mechanism that we propose. It is opposed by Labour authority after authority. It will be helpful if individuals have the opportunity to see how they settle down in a new tenancy. It will be for local authorities to decide whether that is what they wish to do. I would recommend them to adopt that approach, but the decision is entirely for local authorities. I want to give them the opportunity to make a decision. Neighbour nuisance damages many people's lives. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of that from surgery experience. We are giving landlords effective powers against a minority who do not accept responsibility. We need especially to protect social tenants, who may have little choice when it comes to their neighbours. It is a real issue, especially for our older constituents. Our proposals have been developed in consultation with local authorities. We have taken account especially of recommendations contained in the ADC's report. We have also taken on board recommendations from elsewhere. We have tried to arrive at as common a view as possible. I am sorry that a measure which I think would be important has not gained the support of the ADC.My right hon. Friend will be aware that, even in an area such as Taunton, there are noise problems affecting tenants and owner-occupiers. Those problems are greatly increased in many inner cities. Those suffering from noise abuse are often afraid to complain. I know of instances in which there have been reprisals against those who have complained. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that measures are taken to preserve the secrecy or confidentiality of those who complain, so that the proposed measures may be successfully implemented?
That will be, I am sure, the concern of local authorities that wish to implement the proposals. I shall give them every encouragement to take the matter on board. If my hon. Friend has any ideas on how we might extend the proposals, I should very much like to be informed of them.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
No. I must bring my remarks to an end.
The Bill is designed to extend opportunity. It is designed also to ensure that the resources available to help those in need are applied to those most in need. I say again to the Labour party that, if we are to accept—this has been the position under all Governments—that there are never enough resources to meet every need, we must decide which comes first. That has been the most contentious issue. We have at the moment a system in which some people get to the top of the list by category, thereby overtaking those who by need should be at the top of the list. The way to overcome that is to ensure the most rapid transition for those in real need from not having a home to having a permanent home, and not to have a system whose automaticity means that one shoves down the list those who most deserve and need accommodation. The Labour party should answer a simple question. Is it prepared to continue to allow people in lesser need to get permanent accommodation, and thereby push those in real need further down the list? That is what the Labour party proposes. That situation is wholly contrary to any proper assessment of the use of resources and to compassion for those who really need our help. When the Labour party looks at the arrangements in the Bill and sees the powers of local authorities in association with them, it will discover that the fears that it has raised are unfounded, and that this is a sensible way forward. It is also a question of ensuring that people who can buy their homes are allowed to do so, particularly in future housing association building. The Bill gives people the opportunity to protect themselves against a freeholder who abuses the system. We want to protect people in houses in multiple occupation much more effectively than we have until now, and we want to ensure that HMOs can no longer be concentrated in a way that does damage to everyone concerned. Lastly, we are concerned to see that the opportunities, which until now have been much more restricted, are expanded. This is a proper policy, based on a White Paper that has had a great deal of discussion, argument and consultation. It is noticeable that neither the Labour party nor the Liberal Democrats have a policy with which to counter the Bill. It is for the House to demand that, in their criticisms, they sketch out the policy for which we have waited month after month, since the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras promised that we would have it. Today, we are waiting to hear what it is.
4.26 pm
The people of this country are racked with insecurity: people feel insecure in their jobs; people who need a hospital bed or an ambulance are no longer secure in the knowledge that they will get the attention that they need when they need it; old people feel insecure about their pensions; and millions of people of all ages feel insecure on the streets where they live.
The Government are doing nothing to combat the insecurity that they have inflicted on the people. Instead, they revel in it. Cabinet Ministers clearly welcome it. The Government preach insecurity. They are not hypocritical; they practise it. [Laughter.] Nowhere is their policy of making people insecure more obvious than when it comes to people's homes. Insecurity affects every part of the country, including the constituencies of the giggling oafs on Conservative Benches. It affects all sorts of families—owner-occupiers, leaseholders, council tenants, housing association tenants, private tenants. Above all, it affects the homeless, the families who have no place of their own. Measured against the huge crisis of housing insecurity, the Bill is not just useless, but worse than useless. The proposals in it will make matters worse for many families. It ignores the problems of owner-occupiers. It only tinkers with the problems of leaseholders and of people who live in houses in multiple occupation. The Government are not just complacent; they are nasty and mean-spirited as well. The Bill weakens the position of private tenants and attacks homeless families. It contributes nothing to the building of more houses for the thousands of families with nowhere decent to live. It is no good the Secretary of State trying to blame other people for all that. He cannot shift the blame for the present housing crisis. It is no use him trying to blame Labour councils for everything. The Government have been in power for 16 years. It is time that they accepted responsibility for what they have done. It is their record at which the public are looking. Labour councils, for instance, are not to blame for the plight of owner-occupiers; nor is it the fault of that other old Tory scapegoat, the previous Labour Government.Why should this Minister, this Government or this party take any lectures from the push-me-pull-you Labour party, which says one thing and does another? Hackney council has 2,000 empty houses even as we. speak.
I shall not defend Hackney council's indefensible housing record. Apparently, however, Conservative Members will defend the indefensible record of Departments whose housing "empties" grotesquely exceed that number. The number of empty Department of Transport houses, for instance, has increased by 16 per cent., and the figures for the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Office have increased by 15 per cent. and 44 per cent. respectively. Meanwhile, as the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration himself said in a press statement, the number of empty council houses has fallen.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I shall return to that issue. Now, however, I want to talk about the Government's record on owner-occupation, and compare it with that of the previous Labour Government. Under the previous Labour Government, housing repossessions were running at 3,000 a year, and falling; under the present Government, 50,000 families a year are losing their homes. There are now 17 repossessions for every one that took place under Labour; the Tory record on repossessions is 17 times worse than Labour's.
Under the previous Labour Government, fewer than 10,000 families were in serious mortgage arrears. Today, the figure is 250,000. There are 25 families in serious arrears for every one under the Labour Government; the Tory record on mortgage arrears is 25 times worse than Labour's. On top of that, the present Government have inflicted negative equity on the nation. More than 1,100,000 families now live in homes that are worth less than their mortgages. Negative equity is most common in the south-east, where it affects 434,000 families. It affects 185,000 families in London, and 159,000 in the south-west. However, it also affects 27,000 families in Yorkshire, 51,000 in the north-west, 63,000 in the west midlands and 99,000 in the east midlands.Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Not yet.
I cannot give a comparable figure for negative equity under Labour, because it did not exist under Labour. It did not exist as a fact, and it did not even exist as a phrase.Does the hon. Gentleman not admit that it would be pretty difficult to bring about negative equity with inflation at 28 per cent.? He is merely saying that, under Labour, inflation was so high that there was never any possibility of such circumstances.
Apparently, the Secretary of State is now claiming credit for negative equity. I never thought that we would get him to do that.
In fact, the Government have had to invent the phrase "negative equity" to describe the circumstances into which they have dragged innumerable families. It is said that necessity is the mother of invention. It was necessary to invent the phrase, so the Government invented it. The Tories engineered a property boom in order to win a general election, and when they turned the boom into bust, they left the victims in the lurch. There is nothing in the Bill to help owner-occupiers: they are still left in the lurch.The hon. Gentleman has talked a good deal about what he calls negative equity. Will he now clearly give his party's position? How much more money would a Labour Government spend to resolve the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes as negative equity?
The main thing that is necessary—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] At the beginning of my speech, I spoke of the insecurity that racks everyone in the country. It is mainly job insecurity. The Government's economic incompetence has caused negative equity, and all the other problems suffered by owner-occupiers.
The Tory party claims to be the party of owner-occupiers, but it is not: it is the party of repossessions, of mortgage arrears and of negative equity. But it is worse than that because, on housing, as on tax, it is the party of election lies and broken election promises. During the 1992 election, the Prime Minister said:That added his personal touch to the Tory election manifesto—and Conservative Members were all elected on it—which stated:"We are going to make life easier for people buying their own home."
Since then, all these Tories, led by the Prime Minister, have cut mortgage tax relief twice, cut mortgage help to people who lose their jobs in six different ways on four separate occasions—"We will maintain mortgage tax relief."