HL Deb 26 January 1983 vol 438 cc348-60

9.27 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the London borough of Southwark has determined that companies which have been awarded contracts by the Government at Greenham Common should not be employed in any capacity by the council and that it is appealing to other local authorities to take similar action, and what action they propose to take to deal with this situation.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The reason for this brief debate arises from a resolution adopted by the council of the London borough of Southwark on 22nd December last year. That resolution reads:

  1. "(i) This Council supports the action of the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp in opposing the siting of the U.S. Cruise Missiles in Britain, and affirms its opposition to all nuclear weapons.
  2. (ii) This Council notes that construction of silos and support facilities is already being undertaken by British companies subcontracted by Tarmac, who have been awarded the contract for all work on the missile site.
  3. (iii) Therefore, in line with this Council's nuclear-free policy, it is resolved not to employ in any future capacity. Tarmac or any of the Companies so engaged.
  4. (iv) This Council also undertakes to encourage other Councils to adopt this resolution, and support them in doing so.".

First, let me say that this evening I am not concerned with the views of the women who have been demonstrating at Greenham Common. I do not happen to share their views on nuclear weapons, but I certainly respect them. What I am concerned about is the action of the Southwark Council. I do not accept that a council has the right to blacklist contractors in this way. What, after all, is the offence that has been committed by Tarmac, and by the sub-contractors? By the terms of the resolution adopted by the council last December, none of them will in the future be awarded contracts by Southwark Council even if they submit the lowest tenders. Their offence is that they have competed for, and secured, contracts awarded by the Government at the base at Greenham Common.

I should like to make one rather obvious point at the outset. I believe that it is for the elected Government of this country, and not for the London borough of Southwark, to determine the defence policy of this country. It is for the Government and for Parliament to decide whether these installations should or should not be established, and not for any group of borough councillors. It is of course obviously easy to dismiss this episode as being entirely absurd; as being so silly that it scarcely merits serious discussion. It would be easy to adopt this view, but it would be wrong.

There are three reasons why the decision by the council at Southwark deserves our attention. First—and I put this, if I may, in the bluntest terms to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who will be responding to this debate—I believe that the decision is unlawful. I do not believe that a council can, by resolution, debar companies from the right to tender on equal terms with competitors simply because they have undertaken some work of which the council may disapprove. They are seeking to induce the contractors concerned at the base at Greenham Common to break their contracts with the Government.

In my view, such an attempt is unlawful. I should be grateful to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, shares this view or not. I hope that he will not tell us that it is not for the Government to give a view on the law. In the circumstances of this case, it is highly desirable that they should, because unless they give a view on the law it is highly likely that a number of other local authorities will pass similar resolutions.

As the House will recall, the terms of the resolution adopted by the council of Southwark specifically called on other local authorities to adopt similar resolutions. There are many Labour-controlled local authorities in this country with responsible leadership who will refuse to have anything to do with this at all, but, as we are all well aware, there are a number, both in London and outside, which are controlled—let us be blunt about this—by the kind of extremists who run the council at Southwark and who will follow their example with the greatest enthusiasm. In these circumstances it would be wrong for the Government to remain silent on what they believe the law to be.

It would be wrong for a second reason. This brings me to the second argument I should like briefly to deploy. The Government must take prompt action to protect those companies to whom they decide to award defence contracts. If other authorities follow the example of Southwark—and, as I have indicated, unless some sort of action is taken a number of other authorities are going to adopt the resolution passed by Southwark: indeed, I understand that, as we debate this issue one substantial county council is in the process of considering taking exactly the same line—I think that. unless some form of action is going to be taken, contractors to whom the Government have awarded contracts will increasingly come under this form of coercion. It would in these circumstances be unacceptable for the Government to stand by passively and to allow financial punishment to be inflicted on companies and—let us not forget this either—on the men and women who work for those companies simply because they have succeeded in obtaining Government contracts.

Thirdly, I turn to the general question raised of the conduct of authorities such as Southwark. I served on a local authority in Essex some years ago, when I had the privilege of leading the Labour majority group on that council. I would have regarded it then as most remarkable that within a relatively short space of time a number of London boroughs, including Southwark, would be dominated by men and women who appear to be so remarkably reckless and irresponsible, and so entirely indifferent to the needs of the people who have elected them. It is no accident, I believe, that, while Southwark councillors fulminate against contractors at Greenham Common, thus involving themselves in issues entirely outside their own range of statutory responsibilities, they preside with remarkable complacency over one of the worst administered council housing systems in London.

In the relatively brief period during which the present group, from the left of the Labour Party, have dominated Southwark Council—for a period of nine months only—they have displayed a contempt for the rule of law which is a disgrace to the reputation of local government in this country. In a recent and well-publicised case during the Peckham by-election relating to the National Front, they deliberately defied the law, and they now propose to do exactly the same in Bermondsey, thus giving that particularly repellent organisation just the kind of publicity which it craves. They also, with calculation, endeavoured grossly to mislead a High Court judge who had heard an application for an injunction to remedy this unlawful action. And, in a case strikingly similar in some respects to the case at Greenham Common, so far as the Greenham Common contractors are concerned, they rejected a company's tender, it being the lowest available to the council, on the grounds that the company had incurred their displeasure during a dispute over privatisation in a neighbouring London borough. Then, just in case they had not damaged the reputation of their authority enough, councillors became involved in a physical brawl which required the presence of officers of the Metropolitan Police.

Southwark Council's defence to all these rather remarkable actions is the constantly repeated statement that they are simply representing the wishes of the people of Southwark. Even that is untrue. At the last local elections last May, for instance, the present Labour majority on the council had the support of 43.7 per cent. of those who voted, whereas the Conservatives and Social Democratic and Liberal Alliance had the backing of 52.7 per cent. of the electorate.

I, of course, recognise the dilemma which is facing the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the Government in this case and, no doubt, in many others involving authorities of this kind. They do not want to engage in undue interventionism in the affairs of an elected local authority, and caution in matters of this kind is highly desirable. I do not believe the Government should needlessly involve themselves in local disputes. But when a local authority behaves consistently with such arrogance and careless indifference to its responsibilities, the time for actions has clearly arrived.

We cannot allow local authorites, run by the sort of people who are now running Southwark, to establish enemies' lists—reminiscent, curiously, of some of the excesses we saw in the White House of President Nixon—and deny companies on those enemies' lists the right to submit tenders on fair and equal terms for public works contracts in the area of that local authority. Nor can we allow the majority of the people of Southwark, represented, as they are, by a tiny minority on the council, to have to pay higher rates because of the refusal of the local authority to accept the lowest tenders for contracts.

There are, as I have indicated, even wider issues involved in Southwark than the dispute which has arisen over the affairs of Tarmac Limited and the other companies which have been awarded contracts on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, on the issue I have raised tonight, I hope we shall receive from the Minister an unqualified assurance that the Government are contemplating some form of action.

9.40 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, the House is surely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising what is a serious matter. The noble Lord the Minister will not be surprised when I say that noble Lords on these Benches are averse to interfering in local government, in the day-to-day running of local government. There have been exchanges between this Bench and the noble Lord on interventions by the Secretary of State and others in local government matters. There was one only the other night, and doubtless we shall return to the matter when we come to the question of the Transport Bill. We believe that local authorities should have the freedom to act within what is their proper area. That should certainly be subject to the law. We also believe that they have a duty to get the best deal possible in their tendering and contracts, in their purchasing, on behalf of the local ratepayers. It is no part of their duty to act on the basis of trying to coerce central Government on matters of national policy.

As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, there is a history in this sad borough of dubious decisions. Let us make no mistake about it; it is an unhappy place, with enormous problems. Like many inner-urban areas, it has considerable problems of urban decay. One might have felt that with all those problems. the council's time would have been better spent dealing with them and not meddling in matters outside the scope of its authority. I am advised that Southwark is the top of the league of London boroughs so far as empty council property is concerned. There are about 4,500 empty properties in the area. It is also top of the league in regard to hard-to-let council properties. I am advised there are about 14,000 such properties.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has mentioned a number of cases which indicate the attitude of this local authority, and perhaps I may spend a moment or two dotting the i's and crossing the t's on what he said. First, there is the question of the earth moving contract. As the noble Lord rightly said, it was not awarded to the lowest tenderer, on grounds that the company had worked for Wandsworth Council during the council dispute on privatisation. Your Lordships might feel that greater public debate in Southwark would enlighten the council more than it was enlightened when it came to this decision, since I understand that the people who got the contract also worked for Wandsworth Council during the dispute concerning privatisation.

Secondly, Southwark went back on an undertaking of a previous Labour Administration to rehouse down-town tenants in new homes in the Surrey docks. It continued in that attitude, even after findings by the Ombudsman on a number of occasions of maladministration. Again, as the noble Lord. Lord Harris said, I suggest that that indicates the council's attitude of mind to the law.

As the noble Lord also said, Southwark refused to accept the view of the court on providing a meeting room for the National Front. Nobody abhors the National Front more than do people who speak from these Benches, but the law is to he upheld, since if this kind of censorship is to be allowed, who knows where it will stop? The High Court was quite clear. Mr. Justice Forbes reprimanded the authority for its refusal to comply with the order that had been made, or the advice that had been given, and said that the council had flatly refused to discharge the duty placed on it. There is this thread that runs through all these actions.

I am told that there is far from open government in the borough. The council is constantly blocking attempts by anybody but its own small clique to obtain information on a whole range of issues. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, although the ruling party has a large majority of seats. it has been elected on a minority of votes, and I shall not tonight delay your Lordships with a further exposition of methods of electoral reform that would put that right.

It seems to me that as a result of spending its time on these kind of things, the council is in danger of incurring serious penalties on its block grant. We read in the newspapers that there is a chance of this leading to a 40 per cent. increase in rates. It may be felt that none of these things is in the interest of the local ratepayers. We may disapprove from these Benches of measures that have been introduced by the Government in matters of local government finance. Nevertheless, those measures have gone through Parliament, and local authorities have a duty to act accordingly.

In a sense, none of these things would be of concern to this House, except on the fringe, were it not for the fact that the law itself is being brought into question. The Greenham Common episode is certainly the most blatant of these. I think it would be improper of me to relate this to another matter which is likely to come before the Committee of Privileges in another place, but there are similarities, again, in attitude of mind. But it would not matter what the particular subject was: Greenham Common is an irrelevance to this. If we are going to have local governments using their purchasing power to coerce their citizens and to attempt to coerce the Government indirectly on matters that have been properly decided by Government and by Parliament, then we are opening a Pandora's Box.

They are extremely foolish, these people, if they believe that this is an attitude of mind that can be adopted by only one end of the political spectrum. If we allow this sort of thing to go unheeded, then who knows where it will lead if there are changes of Government and if, for instance, the extreme Right were to get into power in any particular local authority—which heaven forbid!

My Lords, it is a serious matter, and I am sure that the Minister is going to take it seriously; but I hope that he can offer some positive answers to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, tonight.

9.47 p.m.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has provided an opportunity for the House not only to ascertain the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Unstarred Question that he has asked but also to consider, among other things, the motive which prompted the noble Lord to table it. The speech that we have heard from him indicates that he is concerned on several grounds—as, indeed, is the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—some of them quite irrelevant to the matter which is before the House tonight.

He has been critical of the London borough of Southwark in their policy. I like to see that his party believes in being in touch with local government, but I think I should like to ask him—and I will give way if he wishes to intervene—if he has been in touch with the council's officers on the matter to ascertain the council's policy and the reasons for it. Otherwise, it is really like putting people on trial without telling them that they are under scrutiny and without giving them a chance to answer. It seems that the noble Lord has not done so; and I think that is one of the points we can take into account. He has decided to pursue the matter without having gone to those who could have given him information and advice. Yet it is often recommended by his party, on behalf of whom he is apparently speaking, that members should at all times be in touch with their town hall and should find out what is happening and, indeed, what can be done.

In this case it seems that there was not the courtesy of a contact on a matter where he is critical of the London borough of Southwark. I found that I received co-operation when I contacted them to find out the background to all this. I think they were grateful when I told them there was a debate going on tonight in which they were to be criticised. The terms of the motion passed by the council on 22nd December are worth noting, and the noble Lord has at least given us the benefit of knowing what it is.

The noble Lord has, quite rightly, read the terms to the House. One may well ask why any council should pass such a resolution. In the last election, the local Labour Party manifesto, under the heading of "Southwark—a nuclear free zone" said, among other things, that the Labour Party in Southwark recognises that there is no effective way to protect its population against nuclear war and that a Labour-controlled council would call on the Government not to manufacture or transport nuclear materials of any kind within the boundaries of the borough. Some may claim that the council had a mandate to act in the terms of their manifesto.

Whatever the merits of the case, it may be that people should not be surprised that this is one of the consequences. One may ask: what is the merit of the council's view? The first part of the resolution is concerned with nuclear weapons. I use the word "concerned" because I think it is appropriate here, for millions of people of all parties and of none, of all denominations and of all walks of life are expressing concern. Indeed, in a week of two's time the General Synod of the Church will be discussing the book, The Church and the Bomb. However, the noble Lord has not mentioned what kind of concern activates the council in this way.

The Motion is concerned, as the noble Lord says, with Greenham Common where people of all backgrounds are showing their concern, many are suffering great discomfort, hardship and sacrifice, because they do not wish their families to suffer through nuclear weapons. One can argue whether that is the best way to go about it, but that is as they see it. It is a matter where they feel the British Government have no control.

Indeed, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that his noble friend Lord Kennet, writing in the SDP booklet, Neither Red nor Dead: The Case for Disarmament, has said: The present Government has made a bad mistake in about American Cruise missiles on British soil. We have never before had foreign missiles on our soil without our own safety catch on them. If they are to come here at all (and we would certainly prefer to see the whole operation called off in return for the withdrawal and verified destruction of the SS 20s) then they must have a British safety catch". I believe that on 18th January the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, from the Liberal Benches, with concern shared by all sides, had a question on cruise missiles and I rather thought from his supplementary question that he was not happy with the assurances about who would control them. The anxiety of the London borough of Southwark is matched by the expressions of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and indeed by the SDP's own publication.

One may ask why the SDP and the London borough of Southwark are so concerned on this matter. Again, if one looks in the publication to which I have referred, on page 4 the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gives some horrific details of what may result from nuclear weapons, some of them not unrealistic.

Lord Bellwin

If the noble Lord will give way, may I respectfully suggest that this is quite a red herring that he is drawing across the debate? This is not the issue at all that is under discussion at the present time. If we are to have a debate on the rights or wrongs of nuclear deterrents I am sure there have been and will be plenty of opportunities to do so.

Lord Bishopston

I am speaking about a resolution which has been detailed to your Lordships' House that the council supports the action of the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp, and so on, against the proposed siting of U.S. cruise missiles in Britain. I am keeping to the subject a little more than some of the noble Lords who have spoken up to now and who have introduced matters such as empty houses and so on. This is in the resolution and I am only anticipating some reasons as to why the council should have passed such a resolution.

As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, having given details in that publication, goes on to say, anticipating the effects of nuclear fall-out: One H bomb burst over London means this"— he made reference to some of these points— not for hundreds nor for thousands nor tens of thousands nor hundreds of thousands nor for a million, but perhaps for five million people". Some would say—and I am not making this point—that, in the light of that kind of claim from the SDP Benches, this action of the council is perhaps modest. It may well, in the minds of those who have to pursue these policies, be a justification.

Reference has been made to the SDP situation on the council. I understand that at the last local election the Labour Party had 27 votes, the Conservative Party had 7, and that the 11 SDP candidates were not elected. I do not want to bring politics into this debate, but they have been brought into it. It may give us some indication of whether a by-election is pending. It might give us an indication of why the matter has been raised tonight. The fact is that the council is concerned about the most important things which matter to all ratepayers, and that is their existence.

To come to the more mundane matters, having dealt with what I think are quite relevant issues in relation to the resolution, there is the matter of the council getting value for money with adequate competition. This has not been mentioned. This is important, too. The position, I understand, is that in each of the categories for which Tarmac was on the approved list in 1982 there are now a number of contractors on the list for 1983. I can go through them if it is wished. There are eight items. On highway construction work there are 55 contractors and the lowest number of contractors is eight in respect of eight items.

There is an answer to the question as to whether there is competition which is in the interests of the ratepayers. I understand that there is no question of the council wishing to break existing contracts. There will be interest as to whether the Government have any powers or requirements about approved lists in competition. Undoubtedly the district auditor would wish to be assured about the competitive tendering and that the council's standing orders have been complied with. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will make a contribution in enlightening us on that. The council, as indeed any local authority, invites tenders but we all know that they do not have to put on the approved list everyone who applies. Indeed, it may seem that a local authority can leave off some without giving any reasons.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? He very kindly invited me to ask one earlier. He is speaking for the official Opposition in this House. Can he simply answer this question: is he in favour of black-listing contractors on the grounds that they have secured Government contracts or not?

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, perhaps I may pursue my case and the noble Lord will get some idea as to the situation. I was in local government for many years before I went to the other House. I was leader of Bristol City Council, chairman of its finance committee, and so on. Therefore. I know something about the responsibilities of local councils. The noble Lord raising this matter tonight is what one might call interfering in local government. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that parties do not like Governments interfering and outsiders telling other people what they ought to do. Here we are with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, telling the council what they ought to do. The electors have taken the decision, and if the electors do not like what is happening then undoubtedly the time will come when they will express their view.

As I say, the local authority could leave off the approved list some contractors without giving any reasons, so that, in the circumstances like the ones we are considering, the council might have saved itself a lot of bother caused to and undoubtedly by the noble Lord. When the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, quite rightly talks about open government, here is the council exercising local urban government, not just striking people off a list and saying, "Do not say why we will not have them", but telling us why they are doing it. All of us are anxious to know what goes on. They were honest and frank about it. Whatever one's views on their action, at least they are sincere to the point of wanting people to know about the issues which cause them concern.

When people talk about matters which are not relevant to a council's responsibilities and about dealing with other things, there are other situations—and I am indebted to the Conservative constituency Newsline, a recent copy of which is in the Library, which tells me under a heading "Devon Ban on CND" that the Devon Education Committee, under its Conservative chairman, Ted Pinney, has decided not to make its schools available to the CND. So it is not a matter of a terrible socialist council in Southwark doing something it should not. Maybe the Minister could comment on this as well. I express no view on this: I merely say that one should be careful when making criticisms. The noble Lord and his party, and indeed all parties, rightly insist that local people should elect members to their councils and let them get on with the job. That is, of course, what the London borough is doing, with no secrecy but with the fullest publicity; and that will be helped by the debate tonight.

Therefore, subject of course to the limitations of national legislation, about which undoubtedly the Minister will rightly have something to say. I think we would all agree that a local authority is in the best position to know its needs and how best they can be satisfied. I am sure we all await with interest the Minister's reply; but, whatever that reply may be, none can doubt the sincerity of the council in what they are doing.

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I have rarely had to listen to a more weird argument being put forward. I have been in this House nearly four years, and I have never heard truth stood on its head and facts so ignored as in the last few minutes. I am absolutely astonished.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House today and, if I may say so, for the very clear way in which he has put the issue before your Lordships. The whole House is indebted to him, for though we have had only a short debate it has been an illuminating one. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has illuminated it for me very much during the last few minutes. It is illuminating because this is a matter on which there should be great public concern, not only because of the current interest in the developments at Greenham Common but because of the growing unease about the activities of some local authorities—and I stress that it is only some local authorities, because this does not apply to the vast majority. But, unhappily, that "some" is growing in number.

I must tell the House that it is my understanding also that the Southwark Borough Council has indeed passed a resolution which would commit them to a policy of black-listing companies which have been awarded Government contracts in respect of development at Greenham Common. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, make the slightest reference to that—and that, indeed, is the whole thrust of what we are talking about. And not only have they done that, but they have proposed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, to encourage other local authorities along the same path.

Today we are talking about Greenham. Really it is the principle involved, with its widespread implications, which makes this matter so important. Local authorities in this country have very wide powers and, as a result, undertake heavy programmes of purchasing and contracting in order to carry out their functions. It is absolutely essential that council members should constantly bear in mind that in carrying out these contractual arrangements they are using public money—money provided by the ratepayers and by taxpayers. It should go without saying that it is their duty to handle these resources responsibly, and to obtain full value for their expenditure.

This public money is not fairy gold, to be dispensed at the whim of the majority party. It is not a private treasure chest to enable them to place contracts with whomsoever they fancy—people who happen to satisfy or please the majority party in some way. Nor is it a resource to be denied to others to whom the majority party may take a dislike. It rests in the council's hands, on trust, to enable them to carry out their legitimate functions in the genuine interests of all their ratepayers and all their electors.

Of course, there are statutory requirements. Section 135 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires local authorities to make standing orders with respect to the way they make contracts for the supply of goods or materials or the execution of works. The standing orders must include provision for securing competition for contracts and for regulating the manner in which tenders are invited. Those standing orders are not subject to approval by the Secretary of State, nor has he power to prescribe their content. But my department has given advice and published model standing orders. And the aim of that advice has been to reinforce the purpose underlying the statutory provision; that is, to secure propriety in the way local authorities handle these matters.

The most certain way to ensure propriety is to use open competitive tendering. Of course, there will always be circumstances and situations where selective tendering can be advantageous and tendering in this way is, of course, an exercise of discretion by the council. But it has to be recognised that discretion can be abused and the practice of selective tendering by public authorities is acceptable only while those authorities are seen to be acting objectively, reasonably, fairly, and observing appropriate safeguards.

In the case which the noble Lord has brought to your Lordships' attention today, the generally accepted conventions are not being observed. The Southwark proposal is an example of how some councils are prepared to distort what is a generally satisfactory procedure, to promote objectives which have nothing whatsoever to do with the council's need for goods or services, nor with obtaining value for money in the use of public funds. Even worse, I am told that in order to pass the resolution—and we heard nothing of this from the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, who made the inquiries that he told us about—they had to suspend standing orders, which require that five days' notice of motions must be given, and that any decision negativing one taken by council in the preceding six months must be taken only as a result of a committee recommendation. The council had earlier, at the same meeting, adopted a list of approved contractors, which actually included some with contracts at Greenham Common.

Furthermore, I have no hesitation in saying that what the Southwark Borough Council propose is wholly objectionable. It follows closely on the heels of the proposal on which the GLC have recently consulted trade associations and trade unions. It would seem that the GLC plan is to ensure that those who contract with the council must pursue policies in running their businesses which conform to the ideas of the majority party of that council on, for example, the racial and sexual composition of its contractors' workforces, and their wages and recruitment policies. In the Government's view, it is quite wrong for authorities placing contracts to become involved for political and ideological reasons with the pay and conditions agreed by contractors and their employees, or to impose requirements as to the make-up of a contractor's workforce. And the Southwark case is a further step down the road of applying arbitrary requirements upon contractors.

The noble Lord asked what action the Government propose to take. I must remind him that local authorities are independently elected bodies which have a great deal of autonomy. The Secretary of State can intervene in their affairs only where he has express power to do so. In this case, he has no direct powers. But the authorities concerned would do well to remember their primary duties to their ratepayers. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for reminding us of this in the clear way in which he did.

Local authorities, too, have to bear in mind that policies of this sort, by restricting competition, may lead them to incur additional expenditure on their contracts, as the noble Lord pointed out. That would be of concern to their auditors, who, I am sure, will be watching events very carefully. They also need to consider the provisions of the Competition Act 1980. The Director General of Fair Trading has discretionary power under that Act to investigate trading practices that appear to him to be anticompetitive. Indeed, I understand that his officials are already pursuing inquiries into the tender conditions of some local authorities. I feel sure that, if the Southwark Council implemented the policy indicated in this resolution, the Director General would be interested to consider—indeed, my Lords, I will do everything I can to ensure that he does consider—against the background of his powers any matter arising from this policy which was brought to his notice.

I hope that the Southwark Borough Council will reconsider the course of action on which they have embarked—in their own interests, in the interests of their ratepayers and especially in the interests of the reputation of local government in this country. If they persist, and other local authorities are foolishly persuaded to follow them, the Government will have to consider the adequacy of the statutory provisions governing local authorities' activities in this field. As one nurtured in local government, I much regret having to say that. It is my wish, and that of the Government, to allow local authorities as much autonomy as possible in the management of their affairs.

What the Southwark Borough Council are proposing is thoroughly reprehensible and can only serve to bring local government into disrepute. Unhappily, it is but one more example of a trend in local government which is causing great concern. Scarcely a day passes without news of some new departure from standards which in my experience were once generally accepted without question in local government and taken for granted by the whole community. The guiding principle was that of service: service to the community as a whole, not just to those who voted for you, in an endeavour to do one's very best for the area and the services available to the people.

Now we hear far too much about sectional interests. We hear of disproportionate majority group representation on committees, of manipulation of agendas, of the denial of access to papers, and, incredibly, curtailment of the opportunity to debate in full council, and so on—all designed to prevent minority groups or individual members from playing their proper role in council affairs. We hear, too, of selection of officers by reference to their political leanings and even of the administration of services on a selective basis—for the wrong reasons—within the area of a single local authority.

This concern with narrow sectional interests is wrong in principle. So where will it end? I am convinced that this trend leads inevitably to worse local government and less service to the community. But the problem is what can be done about it. How can we restore and maintain that probity and integrity which has for so long been a proud tradition in local government?

I believe the most effective and satisfactory solution lies with public opinion and in the hands of local government members. They can, if they will, ensure that the traditional standards are maintained and the conventions observed. If they fail, there will no doubt be pressure to seek for other solutions. But whatever checks and balances may be built into the system, it can only be as good as the people who operate it. That is why I appeal to local authority members to be vigilant and swift to publicise and to condemn the abuses which are becoming more and more prevalent in local government today.

I take up my new office as Minister of State for local government concerned—no, I say more than that: determined to do all I can to further good relationships between central and local government. So long as local authorities work within the rules set by Parliament and within the overall parameters of government, which historically they always did, then beyond that the greatest possible degree of local freedom and local autonomy should prevail. What we have been discussing today must be abhorrent to the vast majority of people of all parties in local government who I know cherish the reputation and the standing of local government. This kind of irrelevance, this kind of political nonsense, has no place in the sort of future which all responsible people want to see.

I repeat that I hope those concerned will think again. This is not the way to do things. The Government are disturbed by these trends. All decent, thinking people are disturbed by these trends. It is no less than our duty to keep a very close eye on what is happening. I assure your Lordships that we shall be doing just that.

House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.