§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.34 am§ Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of dignity at work before the House rises for the summer recess. I wish to put down a marker, and I give notice that I shall return to the matter after the recess. I should also mention the good work already done in another place by the noble Lord Monkswell on bullying at work.
Bullying at school is usually our first taste of the cowardly and thuggish behaviour of individuals. The perception of a bully is usually male—someone who picks on those smaller than himself—and his actions usually involve petty crime, such as stealing or demanding money. What I have just described happens, but the crude thuggery of bullying away from the school yard is commonplace in the workplace. It is often perpetrated through psychological abuse—often by women against women—and does not get the publicity it should. We often hear about sexual harassment at work, but there is substantial evidence of harassment by someone of the same sex.
Another form of bullying can best be described as career assassination. Let me cite a constituency case in Lanarkshire involving a woman boss in charge of a dozen other women in an education department caring for children with special needs. I shall not name my constituent, but Mrs. X, as I shall call her, is a middle-aged, well-qualified, professional educationist. She is an excellent worker, conscientious and caring, and, because of her confidence in her own ability, she is the ideal caring professional whom we would all want to care for our own children if they needed her special care.
However, because Mrs. X was popular and respected by her fellow professionals, her newly appointed boss saw her as a threat, and began undermining, demeaning and intimidating her. My constituent decided to deal with the problem by ignoring it, hoping that it would resolve itself when her new boss had got her feet under the table—but that did not happen. Unfortunately, Mrs. X's attempts to ignore her boss only made her all the more unreasonable, vicious and sly, and the psychological abuse continued.
How can we deal with bullying? Perpetrators of such behaviour are usually sick. Their cowardly actions suggest that they have a form of mental illness.
As a result of prolonged intimidation and psychological abuse, my constituent became ill, and took time off work. An expert in a profession where her skills are at a 290 premium has been off work for a considerable time, has lost thousands of pounds in earnings and her services to children who need her special care have been lost.
The House may think that that is an extreme case—I should like to think so, too—but I suspect that such abuse is quite common. I suspect that every hon. Member present could give some example of similar bullying in their constituency. I therefore welcome the Dignity at Work Bill, promoted by Lord Monkswell, which was given a Second Reading on 4 December 1996. I give notice of my intention to persuade the Government to include protection for employees against bullying in the workplace in their legislative programme. I am pleased to have been successful in raising this important issue. I know that right hon. and hon. Members want to raise their concerns on other issues, so I will soon conclude.
I was proud to be raised in a working-class home in a mining community—a humble background to some, but a very proud and particularly character-building experience for me. My parents instilled in me an ethos of always being considerate and respectful to others. One should be respectful to others if one wants to be treated as an equal. The right to dignity is not just about good manners, or even buzz words such as "good practice". It is a human right which should be available to all. The right to dignity at work is a human right, too.
Employers—and, on occasions, some politicians—may indulge in such abuse. They could be called control freaks. Control freaks use many tools, such as the tools of patronage—a posh word for rewarding obedience. Careers are controlled by the carrot and stick of political patronage. Career assassination is viewed in this place not as a dastardly act, but more as an occupational hazard.
The carrot takes many forms: a position in the Government—if it is a big carrot—a promise of a seat on a quango, or even a trip to Mauritius or some such exotic place. If everything else fails, the occasional knighthood or peerage has been known to thaw strong resistance. This week, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have had a lifetime of political carrots experienced a wee bit of the stick. A part of me thinks, "What did they expect?"
I close my contribution by making a proposal that will send shivers down the spines of some of my political colleagues. If we are to protect and extend to our citizens the democratic process, we must open up government to them. Transparency, scrutiny and openness should be our three watchwords. When we talk of an inclusive process, radical constitutional change, and honour and integrity in public service, let us, in the words of the Prime Minister, say what we mean and mean what we say. If we are to do that, we must look radically at how the House of Commons and its whipping system operate. At best, the whipping system must be reformed—although there is a good democratic argument for abolishing it.
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) may have been referring to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the post previously held by the Leader of the House—when he talked of character assassination. The right hon. Gentleman has been well known for some time for the character assassination of several of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman has focused our attention on some of the events of the past few days.
291 I welcome the Leader of the House to her new post. She and I represent neighbouring areas in Derbyshire. As Leader of the House, I expect that she will become Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, and therefore provide a lead on several important decisions in the not too distant future.
The hon. Member for Clydesdale talked of character assassinations, of which we have seen some interesting examples this week.
§ Mr. HoodI do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand my point—and I certainly do not want him to mislead the House. I talked about career assassinations, not character assassinations.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI stand corrected—although, given the machinations of the week, the two could be linked. We saw the departure from the Government of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the former Minister for Welfare Reform, who was originally asked by the Prime Minister to "think the unthinkable". Perhaps he did, and that was why he could not stay in the Government for very long. Perhaps we shall now be able to hear those thoughts expressed in the Chamber.
My main reason for catching your eye,in this short debate, Madame Speaker, is to raise the issue of the proposed closure of magistrates courts in Derbyshire—particularly West Derbyshire. I want to do so because, as it happens, this morning I received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in which he explained to me that decisions on such matters are usually made within three months of the receipt of objections. For objections to be considered by the Lord Chancellor, the county council must first object to the proposals. Derbyshire county council made such an objection on 16 June. Given the three-month procedure for determining appeals, we may expect the Government to make an announcement before the House returns.
There is, without question, a need for a magistrates court to serve West Derbyshire. I support the retention of the three magistrates courts in Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock until a magistrates court is built solely to serve West Derbyshire. If that long-term objective were proposed, I would consider a possible reorganisation of the courts structure in West Derbyshire.
It is vital that justice is administered locally, and is seen to be so. It is a fundamental tenet of the system. The 1989 Le Vay report included the following nationally accepted definition:
the function of magistrates' courts is the delivery locally of local justice by local lay people. Justice in a given locality should be administered by lay people from among that community, who can bring to their judgements in court a knowledge of the area and an understanding of the community's values.Particularly in rural areas, people are concerned that more remote benches will not understand the rural way of life and the importance of the matters being brought before them. Furthermore, there are particular problems with rural accessibility contained in the proposals submitted by the magistrates courts committee in Derbyshire.292 Nor does local justice stop at the court itself. The editor of the Ashbourne News Telegraph said in a recent article:
I know from experience that many defendants fear publicity more than the sentence. It would seem extremely unlikely, unless Ashbourne area cases had their own specific day for hearing, that we would travel to Chesterfield day after day in the hope of picking up a case involving a local defendant.However, it is accepted that blame and shame have a notable effect on local offenders and their victims.In coming to its decision, the magistrates courts committee suggested a travelling time of
60 minutes by public transport and within 15 minutes' walk from the nearest public transport node".It shows a marked lack of understanding of rural transport to assume that it is possible to travel via public transport from Sudbury, Hartington, Youlgreave, Fenny Bentley and many other villages throughout my rural constituency—which the Leader of the House knows well—to Chesterfield or Derby within an hour. I would argue that it is only just possible to do so in one's own vehicle in an hour, and that is in good weather. In winter, it would take considerably longer.If the proposals go forward, magistrates have said that there will be
a high probability of non-attendance and increased adjournments, adding to the usual list of excuses for non-attendance. Sophisticated bailees will simply wait for the Police to collect them.I received a letter the other day from one of the local magistrates who serves West Derbyshire. It pointed out West Derbyshire is not only a huge geographical area, but is one of the most visited parts of the United Kingdom, with more than 20 million visitors every year. The letter said that the magistrates court committee's proposal to split the division and to take the court work to Chesterfield and Buxtonwas rejected after considerable public outcry, and in July 1995 the Committee stated then that 'Commitment should be given to provide a court in the West Derbyshire division in the long term.'This commitment was short-lived.We now have the proposals that the Government are considering.The magistrate's letter continued:
The Committee has also produced figures of court-hours to justify their proposals for the sitting of the courts. In 1995, the Home Office Courts Service Inspectorate severely criticised the Committee for the poor state of maintenance of the courts and lack of secure facilities, and instructed them to provide the latter. Their immediate response was to move West Derbyshire custody cases to Buxton and Chesterfield. Moving cases causes inconvenience to victims, defendants, witnesses, lawyers, police, probation and social services. There is also a considerable increase in expenditure in travelling, subsistence, and increased legal aid costs.There is a point that the magistrate particularly wanted me to make. The letter said:Significantly it alters the court-hours differential between the `losing' and 'receiving' court by a factor of two. A court hour added to Buxton or Chesterfield and lost from West Derbyshire becomes two hours for the purpose of comparison of court needs for the area.The magistrate added that, during 1995 and 1996, many custody cases were moved from West Derbyshire:The Bench were assured that these hours would be credited back to them, but this does not appear to have been done, and the Bench have not been able to obtain any figures, or access to court registers.293 The magistrate said that a new dock and secure facilities were installed at Bakewell for 1997, and added:Suggestions which would have enabled all West Derbyshire youth cases to be heard there, thus ensuring that young people were dealt with as near to their home as possible, which is the legal recommendation, were ignored. Youth Courts in West Derbyshire were cancelled, or held irregularly, and on some occasions, magistrates, staff, solicitors, co-defendants, police and social workers … waited in vain for the return of young offenders who had been improperly taken to Chesterfield and dealt with there. Some young defendants travelled from Clay Cross to Matlock (for Matlock offences) to a court which had been cancelled, as did a young defendant with a social worker who had travelled from secure accommodation in another county.At the same time, the youth court sittings at Buxton were increased from 25 to 38 days for the year, and a policy of adjourning all youth cases to the first available venue, regardless of the site of the crime, was instituted, without any consultation with the West Derbyshire members of the joint High Peak and Glossop panel.As one of the venues has 38 sittings and the other 12, the outcome is apparent; youth work has been taken to Buxton and Chesterfield from West Derbyshire. That is very expensive for social services. Time and money are being wasted on transport and waiting, and a day can be spent on one youth. The committee failed to make use of the facilities at Bakewell, provided at a cost of £18,000 from public funds.
It seems that the committee has neglected to provide basic facilities for a large area of Derbyshire. When it was reprimanded, its reaction was to remove cases from that area to other courts. The committee has used the hours generated by those moves to increase the apparent need for courts in the receiving areas. That ensures that courts are built in the receiving areas, which already have reasonable court facilities, and the people of West Derbyshire are denied the facility for which they are paying.
This may be a familiar subject to you, Madam Speaker. On 20 May—in a debate before the Whitsun recess—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised the subject of magistrates courts in South Derbyshire, and I agree entirely with his comments near the end of his speech. He said:
Clearly, the proposal is ill founded and I very much hope that the paying authorities, Derbyshire county council and Derby city council, will not endorse it when they decide their position. The project will also be expensive—this is not a PFI that will save us a lot of money."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 884.]The issue has moved on since the last time the House debated it, and both Derby city council and Derbyshire county council have now objected. The proposals are now before the Lord Chancellor.I accept that the Leader of the House will not be able to comment in detail on the proposal before the Lord Chancellor, but I hope that she will assure me that my comments this morning will be brought to the Lord Chancellor's attention, so that, when he comes to make his final decision, he will be aware of the strong misgivings—shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—about the court relocations. I hope that he will decide to reject the proposals, and to keep open the magistrates courts in West Derbyshire, and in other parts of Derbyshire which have made a similarly good case.
§ Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh)First, may I record my appreciation and gratitude to the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), for her radical and remarkable tenure in office during the past 15 months or so? Following the reallocation of her duties, she will inspire the House with her leadership in terms of the programming of the House in the future.
The subject I wish to discuss is the state and the future of the British horse racing industry. I must record my interest—not a pecuniary one—as the senior chairman of the renowned and famous bloodstock and horse racing group, Lords and Commons. Horse racing has been known as the sport of kings, but it is very different now. Satellite and terrestrial television bring sporting activity into our living rooms.
What used to be a sport a couple of hundred years ago is now a major industry. The racing and betting industry involves 100,000 jobs, with an annual turnover in off-course betting of £4.6 billion. The Exchequer is always around to cream something off: £300 million in taxation and another £150 million for racing and breeding. That is no small change. When Chancellors are looking for a bob or two, they make statements that frighten the industry.
Regular attendance at racing has topped 5 million. That is the highest figure since the 1960s. Obviously, with a Labour Government in office, there are a few more shillings to be spent, and more pleasure and adaptation to leisure to be had. After the world cup, racing is the most televised sport on terrestrial television.
Despite its popularity, the industry is in turmoil. The new chairman of the British Horseracing Board is slugging it out with the director general of the Betting Office Licensees Association. The Horserace Betting Levy Board is, in my view, an unnecessary stratum of administration, and it is rowing with the National Association of Bookmakers. There is constant verbal jousting, which is not improving the industry's image or public relations. The family is at war in the racing industry.
Unfortunately, the bookmakers cream off substantial amounts that should go to the levy board to be ploughed back into maintaining and improving the standard of British racing. One would not have said this as a Labour Member of Parliament some years ago, but I believe that Government should get out of the industry, which should stand on its own two feet, as it is no different from the chemical industry or any other.
The Government are forced to adjudicate between the bookmakers, the British Horseracing Board and all the other organisations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who used to be Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, must know all about it. The industry needs to be competitive and to sell its product. The new BHB chairman, Peter Savill, would want to find the highest bidder and plough the money back into the industry. We could have open competition, rather than the three monopolies that we have at present.
As my right hon. Friend well knows, the Ladbroke-Coral issue is entirely clear. She referred it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I must talk to her successor, because, when the commission reports 295 back, it will be for the new Secretary of State to make the decision. It is an interesting scenario, and we shall want to see what happens.
I have made it clear to all the major figures in the industry that the poor old punter is stuck in the middle. Off-course betting in local betting shops accounts for 96 per cent. of the money. The poor old punter pays 9 per cent., and certainly does not get value for money in the sporting odds offered by bookmakers.
The Exchequer takes £300 million a year, and the bookies make £100 million profit and are the majority shareholders in the satellite services company, which is a lucrative cream-off, yet the racing industry makes only about 1p in every £1 bet, which is the lowest proportion in the world.
The BHB financial plan, drawn up by Peter Savill, is to be welcomed. The racing industry never had a strategy before. There are arguments about the money. The plan is for £25 million to be raised by the sport itself, and, it is hoped, for £80 million to come from the Government; but there is no way that will happen. The money must come from the industry itself, and, frankly, the bookmakers should be targeted. They should put more money back into the industry, and give a fairer share to both the industry and those who patronise it: the punters.
Four separate Departments are involved in the racing industry: the Treasury, because of the huge tax contributions; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because it is a sport, although it should really be considered an industry; the Home Office, because of licensed betting; and the Department of Trade and Industry, because it is an industry. How many other industries have so many different Departments to deal with them? It is ludicrous.
Bureaucracy in the sport must be reduced. The levy board is like a middleman. It collects and redistributes the money as it sees fit—I suppose there are criteria—although it is bound by regulation and bureaucracy. To be honest, it is an unnecessary stratum of administration. The distribution of money should be put under the auspices of the British Horseracing Board. Having one board to deal with the whole industry would be far more sensible. In the coming year, there will be a reduction of £5 million in the levy takings going back to the industry.
My right hon. Friend knows very well about the merger I mentioned. I opposed it, and made a submission to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, because I believe that it would be against the public interest, especially for the punter, and that competition would go out of the window.
I pay tribute to the Tote. Under Peter Jones, a determined and dedicated chairman, it has advanced no end in a short period. It gives efficient service, and distributes the money back to those who have put it in. Nobody plays around, creaming off profits here and there. It makes a remarkable investment back into the industry. I commend the initiative taken by the Tote, and hope that it will be successful. I hope that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission allows the Tote to buy the 830 Coral shops that are for sale.
I applaud the BHB plan and hope that it will be successful. It would create 9,000 new jobs immediately. I commend the Racecourse Association. Remarkable 296 improvements have been made at Haydock Park, a beautiful racecourse which lies between Liverpool and Manchester. The initiative that has been taken means that families can go nearly any day of the week to enjoy not only racing but other leisure activities.
The industry needs total deregulation, so that it can function like any other competitive business, offering the best services, standards and quality to the public and those who sponsor it. If we do not reform racing, more top racing and top owners will go abroad. We will lose our lead in the racing world, along with the revenue and prestige that the horse racing industry has always brought to the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)I want to discuss two issues that concern my constituents. The first arises from a visit to my surgery by Mrs. Gladys Peckham. She is widow of 85 who lives in a council flat. She feels very alone. Her only companion is her chihuahua, whose name is Penny. Gladys has a friend who lives a considerable distance away in Cobham. She wants to move nearer to her friend so that she does not feel so lonely, and she sought a transfer to sheltered accommodation. She received what at first seemed like a positive reply from the local authority involved, but she read on and found that she was being told that she would have to make alternative arrangements for her pet. She would not be allowed to keep Penny in the residential accommodation.
The bond between people and their pets can be strong, especially with older people who rely heavily on their pets for companionship. Sadly, the emotional importance of pets to older people is not taken seriously enough by many local authorities and housing associations. In some cases, official indifference can result in heart-breaking consequences. More than 140,000 pets are taken to vets or animal sanctuaries each year because their elderly owners are moving to alternative accommodation, and 38,000 of those pets, are put down.
It cannot be right for older people to be forced to choose between ensuring that they can keep their pets, the prospect of their beloved pets being destroyed or placed in other care and rehomed if they are lucky, and the desire to move into more appropriate sheltered or residential accommodation.
I hope that more local authorities and housing associations will, in the first instance, take voluntary action to review their policies and practices, consult older people and draw up and develop pet-friendly policies. There is much good practice in the voluntary and housing association sector and local government. My local authority has good practice, but that is no help to Gladys, because she wants to move to another area.
I am grateful to those hon. Members who have signed early-day motion 1573 on this issue. I hope that local authorities and housing associations that have not yet examined good practice will do so. If they are reluctant, I hope to persuade Ministers not to legislate but to advocate, persuade and be more active on the matter.
Pet-friendly policies should include entitlement to own a pet if the resident can care for it and it is no danger or health hazard to others. If the pet dies, it should be possible to replace it. Residents must take responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of their pets, and ensure 297 that they are kept under proper control. If a pet must be rehomed, the housing provider must advise an appropriate animal welfare agency that can help. Social services departments should keep registers of private and public sector residential care providers with such policies. The worst thing is for older people to go to housing or social services departments only to be told that they must get rid of their pets, rather than being able to examine the available options.
I hope that the Leader of the House will tell her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that this issue affects not only my constituent but many people who feel that having to abandon their pets to get appropriate housing is unacceptable.
The second issue goes wider than my constituency. If we are honest, standard spending assessments are a mystery to most of us, and probably even to the officials who have to deal with this science, if one can call it that. A recent paper by the Association of London Government deals with some changes that are being considered by the DETR and the Department for Education and Employment that seriously affect the resources available to London boroughs and thus the services that they provide.
Three changes are being considered: to the additional educational needs index; to the area cost adjustment, which was the subject of numerous inquiries at Environment Question Time; and to the children's personal social services formula. The main changes affect additional educational needs and children's personal social services.
For AEN, it is proposed to drop lone parents, income support claimants and ethnic minorities from the index used to allocate funds. As a result, the index will under-predict inner London's unit costs for providing education services by about 10 per cent. Over the next three years, a council such as Tower Hamlets could lose up to £50.7 million from its education budget. My local education authority in Sutton could lose about £9.5 million.
The second big change affects children's personal social services. If the new methodology had been used in 1997–98, London would have lost about £88 million, with 12 London boroughs losing more than 25 per cent. of their children's personal social services SSA. Over three years, that would cost London social services, and thus the services provided to children, around £300 million. The Health Committee has rightly identified that inadequate resourcing has been a major cause of failure in children's services, but we face the prospect of a reduction in funding for those very services in the capital. We know that, in parts of the capital, those services are already failing, and need greater investment and support to do their job properly and effectively.
Taken together, the three changes could cost London and London services up to £1.5 billion over the next three years. Those resources are vital to the delivery of services. The welcome additional investment in resources for services by the Government has raised expectations that there will be improvements to services and standards. The changes will undermine the Government's efforts to raise standards in education and social services.
To put that figure of £1.5 billion another way, if councils were allowed to raise their council tax to bridge the gap—it is certain that they would not be 298 allowed to do so—approximately a 70 per cent. increase in council tax would be required, which would add £485 a year to the average band D council tax across London. That is far too much, and would have a devastating effect on many of those who rely on the services. I hope that the Leader of the House will communicate that concern to the Department.
I understand that this subject was to have been raised in an Adjournment debate later this week, but that, sadly, hon. Members will not now have that opportunity to raise their concerns. However, the Association of London Government, Labour leaders of many councils and many of my colleagues who lead London councils are seriously concerned about the impact on children's services and education. Therefore, I hope that, before final decisions are made, our representations will be taken into account.
§ Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)First, I join other hon. Members in congratulating the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on her appointment. I am sure that her new responsibilities will be both varied and interesting, and I wish her great success.
In this Adjournment debate, I shall talk about Cyprus. At the outset, I declare that I am chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group, to which hon. Members of all political parties in the House belong.
I shall not go over in detail the events since the Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus 24 years ago, because they are well known, as are the efforts made, year after year, to try to reach an honourable settlement, and the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus which have repeatedly called for a settlement. All hon. Members who belong to the CPA Cyprus group want an honourable settlement that recognises the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots just as much as Greek Cypriots; and we want a Cyprus in which all its people can live in peace and share in the development and prosperity of their country.
As many hon. Members know, this country's links with Cyprus go back well over 100 years. It is a Commonwealth country, and we are one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus, yet Cyprus is today the only European country that is divided by a wall and barbed wire. A great deal of its territory is occupied by a foreign army, that of Turkey. There is a so-called "independent state" in northern Cyprus, which was set up in 1983; but, after all those years, the only country that recognises it is Turkey. The United Kingdom, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the United States of America all refuse to recognise that so-called independent state.
For some time, the Republic of Cyprus has sought membership of the EU, and it is widely supported by many countries in that endeavour. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has left no one in any doubt of the UK Government's support for that application, and I warmly welcome that clear commitment.
Despite that support, and despite President Clerides of Cyprus having made Turkish Cypriots a constructive and generous offer of a meaningful role in the discussions on membership, which has been refused, threats have been 299 made that, if the application continues and is successful, Turkey will annex northern Cyprus into its mainland; and Turkey has insisted that it should be admitted to the European Union before Cyprus. Those threats are totally unacceptable.
I serve as a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe. At the assembly meeting of the socialist group in Strasbourg in June this year, I opened a debate on Cyprus. The chair of the political affairs committee of the Council of Europe, Andras Barsony of Hungary, commented on the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the spokesman for the Turkish Cypriots, and on Turkey's attitude towards Cyprus's right to seek membership of the EU.
I subsequently asked the House of Commons Library about the British Government's view; a reply dated 3 July stated a clear commitment. The Library wrote to me as follows:
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have supplied the following statement in response to my inquiry about the Government's position on the Treaty of Guarantee in relationship to Cyprus' application for European Union membership:Her Majesty's Government does not believe there is any legal obstacle to the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Cyprus. The Governments of the other 14 member states of the European Union, and the Legal Services of the European Commission and the Council, all share this view. We consider the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to have acted legally in submitting its application to join the EU, and in pursuing it.I warmly welcome that clear statement. I hope that Turkey and Mr. Denktash are made fully aware of the Government's view.To my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I say that I hope that the UK will now work actively with our colleagues and friends in the Austrian Government, who currently hold the presidency of the European Union, to continue that commitment to Cyprus. There can be no doubt that membership will benefit the whole of Cyprus, both Greek and Turkish communities. It will also bring security and prosperity to Cyprus. That is what I want, what many hon. Members want, and, indeed, what many Turkish Cypriots want. Regrettably, Mr. Denktash continues to refuse.
As I said, Cyprus has had a long association with this country. Cyprus threatens no one, but it is now repeatedly threatened. I have here a cutting from The Daily Telegraph of 21 July, which states that the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Yilmaz, renewed threats of force against Greece and the Greek Cypriots on the 24th anniversary of Turkish military intervention on the island. We know of the presence of more than 30,000 Turkish troops in the north of the island of Cyprus; and we know that those troops have some of the most modern and sophisticated weaponry in the world. For years, President Clerides has called for the full demilitarisation of the island, and he has outlined proposals on that subject, but they have been rejected by Mr. Denktash and by Turkey.
Every Member of the House knows of the crucial role played by Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean. Yet Cypriot airspace is repeatedly overflown by Turkish military aircraft. Turkey has repeatedly threatened to annex the northern area of Cyprus. Now the Republic of Cyprus is discussing the establishment of missiles in the south of the island.
300 I should much prefer that there were no missiles, but every country has a right to protect its territory from aggression. That is why the issue is so important, and all efforts need to be made to try to resolve it. Certainly, the Republic of Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Greece—which is another guarantor power for Cyprus—the United States and the United Nations all want a settlement. Turkey can undoubtedly play a major role in working towards such a settlement.
Turkey talks about its future European role and its wish to be a member of the European Union, and I am in no doubt that it will, one day, join the European Union. However, it must begin to understand that, unless it changes its record on Cyprus and on human rights in Turkey, its action against trade unions and the press in Turkey and its treatment of Kurdish communities, it will make little progress towards achieving a role in Europe. Turkey must be told that, clearly and firmly.
As I said, 24 years ago the Republic of Cyprus was invaded. Some 30 per cent. of its territory is still occupied. No UK Government can say, "That is sad, but it is not up to us to find an honourable solution." For the reasons that I have given, it is up to us. That is why I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House will repeatedly return to the issue of Cyprus until there is an honourable settlement for the island that will benefit all the people who live there, whether they are Greek or Turkish.
I realise that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may not be in a position to respond in great detail to my comments, but I am sure that she will convey them to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
§ Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)I also welcome the Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box. Perhaps she belongs to the modernising faction in the Labour party, but I am sure that she will have a deep respect for the traditions and customs of the House, and an open ear for Madam Speaker's entreaties not to wreck some of the cherished procedures of the House in a frantic drive to over-modernise.
I want to address a few issues that worry us in Cumbria, which the House ought to consider before it rises for the recess. I am also prompted by the comments about pet animals by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—to make a few introductory remarks to bring the House up to date on exciting developments in the puppy farming business.
I am the right hon. Member who poked his head above the parapet and said that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill was flawed, and I blocked it. That caused outrage from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I discovered that the Petcare trust, the National Canine Defence League, the Blue Cross, the Kennel Club, the British Dogbreeders Council and Justice for Dogs also had concerns about the Bill, and thought that it could be improved. I chaired meetings of those organisations, which wanted to work for a better Bill.
I am pleased to tell the House that the RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association have now joined that working party, which is working to draft a better Bill that it hopes to have ready for an hon. Member who, in November or December, may be willing to 301 introduce it. I am delighted that I was the catalyst for that Bill, but I thought that it would be best if I backed out in favour of someone who is seen to be totally independent. The noble Baroness Wharton has taken over the chairmanship of that group, and is now working with all those animal welfare organisations, the Kennel Club and the British Dogbreeders Council to draft a better Bill.
Compromises must be made, but I am certain that, when the group has drafted the Bill, with Government help in due course, it will represent a wider coalition of interests than the one drafted only by the RSPCA, which satisfied almost no one.
My concerns about Cumbria relate, first, to the county council. For some extraordinary reason, it has decided to reorganise itself into what I can only describe as a politburo structure. We have passed no legislation saying that county council structures are improper or not working, but Cumbria county council heard a speech by the Prime Minister and assumed that, if it did not totally change its organisation, it would be attacked or criticised for not being modern enough.
The council has come up with a structure that practically rules out the contribution in proper debate and scrutiny of Labour, Liberal, Conservative and independent council members, and concentrates all decision making on a little politburo of eight "cabinet ministers" and eight executives who will meet in closed session to decide the whole council policy. That has been described as a much more executive form of decision making. It will cut out many council committees and some bureaucracy, but I am afraid that it will also cut out much accountability to the electorate.
That is a foolish move, which council members will one day regret, because their constituents, of all political persuasions, will find that the councillors cannot represent them because they cannot stand up in a committee or full council and make points on their behalf.
I want also to make a point about education. The Queen Elizabeth grammar school in Penrith is working side by side and hand in glove with Ullswater high school. A few years ago, there was tension between the schools, mainly because the county council wanted to close one or other of them. I chaired meetings of staff, headmasters and governors, and they worked out a good working relationship. The Government then sensibly extended the scope of Ullswater high school so that it could offer A-levels, and of the grammar school so that it could take in younger pupils. The schools offer complementary courses, and are working together well.
That is all in danger of being overturned by the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to extend the voting procedure determining the status of grammar schools to catchment schools which may or may not send pupils to the grammar school. That doctrine of the franchise will create instability in a market town of 12,000 people which has two schools, both of which are centres of excellence. There is now no stigma for pupils attending Ullswater high school, because it is a centre of excellence offering courses different from those at the Queen Elizabeth grammar school. It is unfortunate that that should be destabilised in a frantic bout of political correctness.
I suggest that the Leader of the House examines the guidelines that have been issued by the Secretary of State for Education, in which the procedure for voting on 302 school status is an extension of voting powers to people who have no legitimate say whatever in how a school is run. That procedure can be used to bring about a settlement for schools that is motivated by politics rather than local practicality and need.
Another cause of concern in Cumbria is transport, which is vital to us in the far north-west of England. I know that many colleagues have long distances to travel, and there is always tremendous sympathy for Scottish colleagues who may want to go home on a Thursday evening. I have no sympathy for them. The last plane may be the Glasgow shuttle, which leaves at half-past 8—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eight o'clock."]—the 8 o'clock shuttle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nine o'clock."]—the 9 o'clock shuttle to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Inverness. It is a tremendous distance. Those hon. Members will be home by 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock. The last train for Cumbria leaves at half-past 6. There is a slight extension in the summer—remarkably, we have Mr. Branson to thank for that. Currently, the last train for Cumbria leaves at half-past 7.
That is not a personal sob story. I do not mind; I have become used to it over 15 years. I am merely illustrating the point that, whereas colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom may live further from London, the transport links are infinitely better than those with Cumbria and the north-west. To reach our nearest airport, we must cross the Pennines to Newcastle or travel south to Manchester. We therefore depend fundamentally on motorway links and rail links, and on the forthcoming improvements to the west coast main line.
Today I wish to focus on more parochial issues—well, not parochial, but not mega-stuff such as the £2 billion investment in the west coast main line. I wish to talk about the need to close the Cumberland gap—the last remaining stretch of dual carriageway at the top of the M6 before we hit the M74 and the improvements being made to it. That short stretch of dual carriageway is a death trap, because there is motorway either side.
The contracts for upgrading that stretch of road to dual carriageway standard were ready a year ago last May. It is a private finance initiative thing, on which, naturally, the general election brought the shutters down. One cannot let contracts with an election in the offing. Then, unfortunately, we were caught up in the roads review.
It is a small contract. Everyone knows that the work must be done. I expect that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will announce it today. I should be appalled if it were not announced today. We have wasted 15 months because that small contract was caught in the roads review. Although it was right for the Government to review their road strategy, it was unfortunate that such a small, necessary thing was caught in it.
I do not know what announcement the Secretary of State will make about the A66 today. I merely say, as someone living in the north-west of England, in Cumbria, that, whereas some parts of the United Kingdom may have decided that they do not want more bypasses or roads, and that they are anti-transport, we have not. There is quite a list of roads that need improvement in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in Workington and in my constituency—especially the A66.
303 We would all welcome that funding. I ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Deputy Prime Minister the message that, if the Government announce today that they plan improvements to the A66, the A69 and other roads in Cumbria, no protest groups will lie down in Cumbria, saying, "No road improvements, thank you." If Mr. Scrumpy, Mr. Swampy, Mr. Stumpy, or whatever his name is, comes to Cumbria—he can bring some scrumpy to Cumbria—he will not be made welcome. Although we desperately care for our wonderful lakeland environment—for our Pennines, the Solway plain and all the other wonderful areas of Cumbria—we depend on road improvements, and we shall welcome them if the Government care to spend money on them.
We are also worried about the Territorial Army. Following the strategic defence review, the Government announced in the White Paper that the Territorial Army would be cut from 56,000 to 40,000, and that the cuts would be concentrated in the infantry and the yeomanry. That announcement desperately affects us in Cumbria, because the only real Territorial Army units in Cumbria are infantry.
The Fourth Battalion King's Own Royal Border Regiment has a company each in Carlisle, Workington and Barrow, and headquarters in Lancashire—as the Leader of the House knows, all Labour-held constituencies. It also has two platoons in Kendal. I believe that 24 per cent. of the members of that Territorial Army regiment are unemployed. It is a vital source of employment to young men and women in Cumbria. Each year, about 100 of them enter the Regular Army.
It is a mistake to cut the Territorial Army infantry. They can be used even in the modern, high-tech mobile brigades that the Government envisage. A few years ago I, and many other colleagues, were thought good enough, as territorial infantry soldiers, to be part of the First British Corps on the Rhine. When we faced the Soviet Union—which was regarded as the most powerful adversary that the world and the western forces could have—the infantry were not told, "I am sorry; these Russians are too good for you. You people are not suitable." Tens of thousands of us had a role, integrated with the rest of the infantry, integrated with armour, in First British Corps, in a task facing the Soviet forces.
Thank God, that has changed, but now we are told, "Terribly sorry; there is no role now for all you guys who were good enough to be part of the force facing the Russians. We shall have these new air mobile brigades. There will be rapid deployment, with all sorts of new things to do, but there is no role for you." That is wrong; of course there is a role. We do not need the same numbers, but the Territorial Army infantry could be used in the new role envisaged. Ten per cent. of our Territorial Army forces are in Bosnia; they can be used there.
Although I believe that the cuts being made in the Territorial Army are wrong in principle and short-sighted, the White Paper is long-sighted enough to consider two new aircraft carriers—if we ever get them. If we get them, it will be wonderful. I believe that we might reconsider the Territorial Army infantry.
Leaving that aside, we have a problem in Cumbria. If the Government are to make cuts of 16,000, the infantry must bear the brunt, and that could devastate us in 304 Cumbria. I plead with the Government to keep the Fourth Battalion King's Own Royal Border Regiment, or not to cut it so much that it is reduced to a meaningless shell.
We may lose a company in Workington. Presumably Carlisle will have a case to keep a couple of platoons. Lancashire will have to keep something. It would be nice if we could keep something in Barrow. The whole thing may be cut drastically, and the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, to the south, may be cut drastically. The whole thing may be cobbled together to form a new battalion composed of a couple of platoons in Carlisle, a couple in Barrow and so on, which will have no real identity or core, and whose platoons will be unable to train together.
The final point on which I wish to conclude is the plight of rural areas in Cumbria. We are worried about what is happening in the countryside. Undoubtedly agriculture is suffering because of the strength of sterling. Everyone who relies on agriculture is suffering. We are already seeing redundancies among agricultural supply companies, and cuts in a range of rural industries.
Farm incomes fell by 46 per cent. in the year to March 1998, and are likely to fall by at least the same percentage this year. That is an incredible cut in income. We know how devastating it would be if our salaries were cut by 46 per cent. Only when that happens do we begin to realise how many industries rely on agriculture. One then becomes aware of the suffering of industries that one never imagined had such a key input from agriculture, and depended so much on it for their livelihood.
The effects are widespread. Everyone in rural parts of Cumbria is suffering from the effects of the drop in farm incomes. If farm income drops 46 per cent., it is not a few wealthy farmers who are affected: in Cumbria, it is tens of thousands of hill farmers—small farmers. We do not have big grain barons with 10,000 acres. It is all small farmers in the sheep, beef and dairy sectors, and all those sectors are affected.
The effect of BSE and the European beef ban continues to be felt. There can be no confidence in the future of agriculture unless we can find ways to speed up the lifting of that ban and to extract a date from the Commission.
On a further point, we must keep green-top milk. The Government have sensibly kicked this into touch, and I hope that there is not one of those announcements that sneak out at four o'clock, hidden behind other announcements that the Prime Minister may make today, stating that it is abolished. Green-top milk is a small part of the overall milk trade in Cumbria and in the UK. Nevertheless, it is purchased by consumers who know what they are doing. There are adequate warnings, and there must be consumer choice. I am a great believer in labelling products, telling people what the risks are—we know that the risks of green-top milk are negligible—and leaving consumers to make a free choice. I could say that the same applies to beef on the bone, but I shall not go down that route now.
I anticipate that many hon. Members will want to speak in the debates tonight. As I do not expect to get in then, I hope that one of them will mention the calf processing aid scheme, and point out to the new Minister of Agriculture how important it is that that scheme is kept going as a vital lifeline to livestock producers. I am sure that the right hon. Lady and her admirable staff will make sure that that point is conveyed to the new Minister of Agriculture.
305 I hope that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will intervene, following a further breakdown in talks between Milk Marque and the dairy trade. Dairy farm incomes alone have fallen 35 per cent. this year, and entire areas of dairying country such as Cumbria will suffer untold damage unless trends are reversed, with milk prices to the farmer rising. I am not making a plea for the doorstep pinta to be more expensive, but there is a widening gap between the price paid on the doorstep or at the supermarket, and the price that the farmer gets. Farmers' income is being cut drastically.
The final point on rural areas—
§ Mr. McLoughlinThe sixth final point?
§ Mr. MacleanNever trust a politician.
The final point on rural areas is our concern about the new regional development areas. The northern part of Cumbria is to be amalgamated with Liverpool. That means that representation from Cumbria, which would have been small in the north-western area, is likely to be even smaller in the combined area of Liverpool and north-west Cumbria.
Ideally, if a county such as Cumbria, which does not properly fall in with the north-east or the north-west, is in the north-west development area, it needs three representatives on the board. It needs someone from the industrialised west country who shares the concerns of west Cumbria and understands the needs there, as well as the industrial needs of Barrow, which are similar; it needs someone from the central lakes and the uplands there, who understands the needs of tourism and England's most important tourist area; and it needs someone from the agricultural areas and the Eden valley, to express the concerns of that part of the county.
It is likely that, for the whole of Cumbria, we might end up with one person on the board. I should hate to have to suggest who, from such a gigantic county, should serve on a regional development agency that covers Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire and the entire huge and important north-west area. Who in the name of goodness could we get to represent Cumbria, where we have important industries such as Sellafield—the nuclear industry—and England's biggest tourist area, as well as the agricultural areas? I plead with the right hon. Lady to tell the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, without setting any quotas, that Cumbria needs three people on the new regional development board, covering skills and disciplines wide enough to represent the whole county.
On that point, which I am sure the right hon. Lady will take on board, I once again wish her success in her new job, and successful and happy holidays, when they come.
§ Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)I shall try not to raise as many points as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), or no other hon. Members will get in.
I welcome the Leader of the House to her new position. She will be sadly missed as President of the Board of Trade.
The topics on which I shall speak are car pricing, vehicle emissions and public transport. There are 24 million cars on the road in the United Kingdom, and the number is rapidly increasing. The UK car industry is extensive.
306 It is well documented that car prices in the UK are massively different from those in the rest of the European Union. The EU publishes the figures in six-monthly reports, and the UK is consistently at the top of the list for car prices. On 1 May, the European Commission published its 11th report on car prices, which shows that cars in Britain are 58 per cent. dearer than anywhere else in the EU. Of the 74 best-selling models, 60 were dearest in the UK.
The greatest discrepancy involves the Ford Mondeo—the car for the world. That leading model from Ford costs us in the UK a staggering 58.5 per cent. more than elsewhere. The Ford Fiesta costs 44.7 per cent. more in the UK than in Spain. The Rover is built in Britain, but the 214, the 414, the 620 and the Land Rover Discovery models are 50 per cent. more expensive in Britain than in Holland. The Renault Clio, which we see in the advertisements—the sexy car, as it is called—costs 33.8 per cent. more in the UK than in Italy. The list goes on and on.
Why is there such a difference? Why should UK consumers have to pay more for a car than our continental friends? What is good for the EU should be good for this country. We are part of the EU, and we should have the same benefits.
The list price of cars is determined by general market conditions. Manufacturers tend to take account of the tax linked to car purchase. Therefore, it is believed that, in countries where special taxes are due for cars, the manufacturers will ensure that net car prices are among the lowest for any models. That is the case in Ireland, Holland and Portugal. However, where no such taxes are due, as in Britain, pre-tax prices are set at a higher level. That has a knock-on effect, which results in the higher retail price.
Manufacturers argue that factors such as exchange rate differences, differences in specification and discounts offered by dealers account for the variation in price between Britain and the rest of Europe. That is not the case. Even if those factors are taken into account, Britain still pays about 10 per cent. more than other EU countries.
Car manufacturers argue that the costs involved in producing right-hand drive vehicles are higher. That holds little water. In any case, under EU competition laws, all EU countries are required to produce right-hand drive cars. It is still possible to buy such a car on the continent and bring it back to the UK more cheaply than to buy it in the UK. That anomaly must be resolved.
The strong pound has not made foreign vehicles such as BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Renault, Fiat and those from other continental producers any cheaper. The prices are pegged and held deliberately. For example, one can buy a Nissan hatchback from Holland for £10,000. Even after paying VAT and bringing the car to Britain, one will still have made a considerable saving.
Although car dealers are permitted to set their own prices, it is alleged that they are reluctant to lower prices because of agreements with the manufacturers. The manufacturers comprise that great body of people who claim to look after those who buy cars, but that is not the case. Manufacturers have been known to manipulate prices by threatening to remove the franchise from dealers should they lower their prices. Manufacturers are pegging prices, and that is not fair to the consumer.
307 Car pricing was raised at a meeting of EU Finance Ministers at York in March. That initiated an investigation into price disparities between EU markets. I hope that the outcome of that study promotes positive action. Something needs to be done to remedy the problem, as the consumer is already becoming more and more dissatisfied and more and more taken for a ride—if the House will excuse the pun.
We do not want people to be forced to shop abroad for their cars. We should be encouraging people to buy cars from United Kingdom dealers. Personally, I should like to see them buy cars that are built in the UK. An important factor is to introduce measures to lower car prices. I hope that the Government will make that a priority, and take action on this important matter. First, that approach would certainly help UK manufacturing. Secondly, it would help to secure more jobs in that sector.
There is a link between new cars, pollution and emissions. Perhaps, if car prices were lowered, the result would be more new cars with reduced emissions, which would have a beneficial effect on global warming. It would also allow us to get rid of the old bangers—the polluters that we see throughout the country. Lower new car prices would make more emission-efficient cars available to the public, which would be better for the community. Much could be done in that direction. As I have said, the problem of global warming could be reduced through this factor.
I am keen to know whether the Government will assist in promoting the use of more environmentally friendly fuel for vehicles. Already the Government provide funding for energy savings—the powershift programme, which gives grants of up to half the capital cost of converting vehicles to run on alternative fuels. I would welcome that factor being taken on board.
The Government have also conducted research into the use of alternative fuels. Local authority fleets and taxis have been tested. However, it is important to understand that fewer than 1 per cent. of vehicles in the UK rely on an alternative fuel. In 1997, 9,100 vehicles were registered as running on gas. There were 17,400 vehicles running on electricity. I would like to see these numbers increase. With an ever-increasing number of vehicles on the roads, I hope that the Government will continue seriously to consider the environmental damage that is caused by car pollution and all its implications.
I hope that the Government will work on measures to improve the assistance that is given to the public and private firms who wish to convert their vehicles. Perhaps incentives can be offered to car manufacturers to produce more cleaner vehicles for general use.
I recently supported an early-day motion that calls on the Government to look into the possibility of providing incentives to bus and taxi companies to convert their vehicles to liquefied petroleum gas or natural compressed gas. The motion has been supported by about 50 Members so far. Traffic pollution would be significantly alleviated if we set targets for converting vehicles to run on LPG or natural compressed gas.
Vehicles such as buses and taxis run through our cities all day and all night. They are continually polluting our cities and the countryside. There is a golden opportunity 308 for the Government to undertake some radical tests, and to conduct trials to clean up our cities. That would not take much doing. I believe that LPG and compressed natural gas are the ways forward, and we should take that on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) represents a constituency that is a near neighbour of mine. He will initiate an Adjournment debate tonight on the cylinders that are produced by Lucas in his constituency. They are made for cars that run on LPG or compressed natural gas. Unfortunately, Lucas will close that factory, which is sad. I think that there should be investment to keep production in the United Kingdom. I welcome my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the car has an important role, but there should be an alternative to it, and that is public transport. Public transport must play a part, but it must be more widely available. That is why I welcome the important White Paper presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We must ensure that public transport is not only available but more welcoming and more efficient, and that applies to bus stations and train stations. They must feel friendly and welcoming to the travelling public as well as safe at night. They must provide facilities.
I shall give an example that shows how bad some companies are. Stagecoach, in my constituency, operates the bus station at Chorley, on land owned by the local authority, on a peppercorn rent. The bus station itself is owned by Stagecoach. When Stagecoach took over the bus station, the lease clearly stated that a public toilet must be provided. Everybody would expect that the general public could use that toilet. Stagecoach was taken to court by the local authority to be asked why the toilet had not been opened. Stagecoach objected, saying, "It states in the lease that a toilet must be provided, but it does not say that it should be open to the general public."
That approach will not allow improvements to be made to public transport in bus and train stations. Improvements will not be made if companies do not provide facilities for the travelling public. That approach is not good enough, and it is not the way forward.
I wish to take the view forward that there should be cheaper vehicles, alternative fuels, better public transport and better facilities for those who use public transport.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)Order. I wish to say before I call the next speaker that a number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If contributions are reasonably brief, it will be possible to call most hon. Members who wish to speak. If contributions are not brief, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
§ 11.5 am
§ Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)I shall heed what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to keep my remarks to within about five minutes.
I welcome the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to her new position of Leader of the House. I wish her well in her arduous duties, particularly at a 309 time of constant change. The right hon. Lady will certainly receive support from the Opposition for sensible change.
As we enter the holiday season, and for us at Westminster the summer recess, with I am sure a short holiday somewhere along the line, it is appropriate to raise the subject of quarantine laws. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in his place. I know that he has introduced a ten-minute Bill on this subject and has worked extremely hard in trying to ensure that we have sensible changes in our quarantine laws. I hope that he, like me, will be pleased very shortly by some announcements that the Government may be making. An announcement is long overdue.
There are 12 million pet owners in this country. Between 1972 and 1995, 170,000 pets were put into quarantine. During that period 2,500 of those pets died.
People go abroad for many reasons, not only for holidays. Some do so by force of work. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned Cyprus, where we have air force bases. One person came to my attention. He was forced, when he finished his three-month stint in Cyprus, to return to this country. His dog had to go into quarantine for six months. That is a long time. If someone is in the armed forces, he might be moved somewhere else fairly shortly after returning to this country. Quarantine law is something that we should consider.
A former Member, David Waddington, became governor of Bermuda. He took his dog with him. In due course he returned to this country and the dog went into quarantine. Unfortunately it died when in quarantine.
The question that must be asked is whether there is room for sensible change. I know that a committee of experts is currently examining these matters. It is to be hoped that shortly it will make some recommendations. We would like early recommendations to come forward because there are many people who would delay holidays while waiting for an announcement while others would not take holidays: because they do not want to be separated from their pets, going abroad is completely alien to them.
There are variable kennel standards within the United Kingdom. However, people do not want to be separated from their pets for six months, even if their pets are in the best kennels.
None of us wants to see rabies introduced into this country, or even the threat of that happening. That applies to any other diseases for that matter. However, we must look at the facts. If there is a sensible alternative, which I believe there now is, particularly with the introduction of new technology and such things as passports for pets, we could take a sensible step and ensure that people could go abroad with their pets without being separated from them for six months.
In 1995, the Select Committee on Agriculture recommended changes for cats and dogs and passports for pets. If we carry on with the current quarantine laws, some people will take their pets abroad illegally and smuggle them back into this country, which will be a problem. Between 1988 and 1995, 769 animals were detected and officially reported as being smuggled back into this country, so one can only imagine how many more pets were brought back in—they are a real threat.
We need a properly regulated system under which we know that pets have been properly inoculated and have in their necks microchips which can be properly scanned. 310 That would ensure that pets are clean going out and clean coming back in. Now that new technology is available, we can do that. Some people will be deterred from the introduction of passports for pets by the expense, but putting pets in quarantine is extremely expensive. The cost is reckoned to be between £800 for cats and £1,500 for dogs, but that is not the only issue. People are concerned about the emotional separation of the pet from the owner.
National Opinion Polls conducted a poll on the subject in 1996, and 86 per cent. of the sample said that they would prefer sensible change, if available. A sensible alternative is available. Will the Leader of the House take on board the fact that some people—for example, the blind, who have guide dogs—have no choice? They are unable to go abroad because the quarantine laws state that they would have to be separated from their guide dogs when they returned.
If we cannot have an early announcement about quarantine laws generally, may we have one for those who rely on their dogs, such as the blind, so that they might at least have the opportunity to go abroad? Passports for pets are backed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 12 million pet owners are waiting to hear what the Leader of the House has to say about them.
§ Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)I have abiding memories of a speech of some urgency made recently by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who spoke strongly about an escape of acid gas in his constituency. I echo the pleasure expressed by Madam Speaker at my hon. Friend's reappearance in the Chamber last Friday, following a recent stroke. I send him my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery.
This issue has been pursued for some years by a constituent, Mr. G. Badley, of Stafford, who has pressed successive Home Secretaries and even petitioned the Queen on a subject about which he feels strongly. I support my constituent, a retired prison officer, on the issue of introducing a long service medal for prison officers. There were calls for such a medal in the previous Parliament and, for completeness, I should say that hon. Members also spoke of its covering good conduct and bravery. Although those are commendable criteria for recognition, I shall confine my remarks to a long service award.
There has been a prison in my constituency for hundreds of years. Stafford prison is currently a category C training prison with a prisoner population of more than 600. I last visited it in March and, although some facilities are clearly not up to modern standards because of the prison's age, the regime is excellent, with reasonable but firm control by prison officers. A good job is done in demanding circumstances. Budgetary matters were raised with me by the management, and I took them up with the Home Office. I also canvassed serving prison officers about a long service medal, and there was overwhelming support for its introduction.
The Imperial Service medal, which was introduced in 1903 for junior grades of civil servants in this country and abroad, is available to prison officers. It is a silver medal with the sovereign's crowned head on the obverse and the inscription "For Faithful Service" on the reverse. I asked 311 prison officers for their comments about it. One said, "Some staff are recommended for it after retirement and it appears to be awarded in an haphazard way." Another said, "Numerous staff are recommended for the award, but only a few receive it". A third member of staff wrote that
as it is only awarded after completion of service, the pride of wearing it on our uniform is not there.That is an important point to bear in mind in respect of the call for an award given during service.Other regular and volunteer services have long service awards. Perhaps the best example is the police service, whose current long service award was instituted in June 1951. The basic qualification is 22 years' service. I was reminded that the police have a long service award during the dispute between the Home Secretary and the Prison Officers Association about recognising the right to industrial action. Part of the Home Secretary's argument was that prison officers are office holders, not employees, and should not have such a right, just as the police are office holders and have no such right. Could not prison officers be like police officers and have a long service award?
Curiously, my research about medals led me to the Colonial Prison Service long service medal, which still exists. It was instituted in October 1955 for 18 or more years of service in colonial prisons. It is odd that there should be such an obscure and backward-looking award, but not one that is modern and relevant.
For several months, I have been asking the Prison Service and the Home Office to support my constituent's call for such an award. In January 1998, Mr. Richard Tilt, the Director General of the Prison Service, told me in a letter that the question has been under consideration for a number of years. It was kind of him to say that that consideration had been prompted from several sources, including Mr. Badley. Mr. Tilt confirmed that the Imperial Service medal was awarded for more than 25 years' service and only on retirement. Officers can of course be nominated for the OBE and the MBE.
I have continued to press for a new long service award. In April, the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), wrote to me that, although the Home Office was willing for such an award to be created, the decision was in the hands of the ceremonial branch of the Cabinet Office. I am told that discussions have been going on for some time, but, at that stage, there were still outstanding concerns.
I wrote again. The latest letter from my hon. Friend, which arrived in June, said that the Home Office was still willing to create a Queen's prison service medal to recognise long service, but was still waiting for news from the Cabinet Office. Interestingly, the letter also said that the future of the Imperial Service medal was under consideration, so the time is clearly right to consider introducing a new medal.
I hope that this airing of the issues will speed a decision to institute a new long service medal for serving prison officers. To prepare for the debate, I read the Prison Service annual report for 1996–97, which was the most recent that I could find. If I have totalled up the columns correctly, assaults on staff in that year totalled 2,531, so 312 it is fair to say that they bravely carry out a tough job and fulfil part of the necessary task of maintaining public order. Prison officers deserve the recognition for which I am calling.
§ Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)I add my congratulations to the new Leader of the House on her appointment, and wish her well in the work that she will be doing to serve the House. Our congratulations are tinged with a little regret, because the precise timing of her appointment may lead to some delay in the much-needed work of the Modernisation Committee. It was something of an irony that 18 years of Conservative rule led to a thorough overhaul of every public body and institution in the land, except Parliament. I am sure that the new Leader of the House, when she reflects on her former role at the Department of Trade and Industry, will remember that she has not merely accepted, but often welcomed, the moves that the previous Government made, to improve the responsiveness, effectiveness and accountability of public bodies. I hope that, as the new Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, she will want to press ahead with reform of the House.
I counsel the right hon. Lady not to listen to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) when he asks her to slow down the pace of reform. Were he present, I would remind him that he was an active supporter of a Government who believed that reform of public institutions should be undertaken vigorously, regardless of the special pleading of those who held office in such bodies.
My regret about the delay is not because the new Leader of the House has shown any unwillingness to continue with reform, but because on Monday of this week the Committee was due to meet Madam Speaker and we were unable to do so because of the timing of the right hon. Lady's appointment. I well understand the reasons for that, but the projected report of the Committee will not now be available before the recess. In all probability, it will not be feasible to debate the report in the spillover session in October. I fear, therefore, that none of the proposals will be implemented in time for the new Session starting in November. We hope that the right hon. Lady will pick up the baton and run with it as vigorously as possible, and that she will help us to make up for the unavoidable lost time.
The Modernisation Committee has been privileged to receive a great deal of material, including many letters from Members, encouraging us to go further and faster. We have also received the timetable for the Parliament in Canada. I can tell hon. Members, if they are interested, when the Canadian Parliament will rise for the Christmas recess in 2003, but I cannot tell them whether we shall be sitting in the first week of November 1998. That contrast between the capacity and ability of legislatures in other parts of the world to come to terms with the modern age; our reluctance and inability to do so are at the heart of my argument.
If the Leader of the House wants to encourage us to adjourn for the summer recess, I hope that she will assure us that her commitment to pressing ahead with her predecessor's urge to reform and modernise the House and bring it into the 20th if not the 21st century is undiminished.
313 I remind the right hon. Lady that a distinguished former Member, Mr. Belisha, gave the country his beacons, and that another distinguished former Member, Kenneth Baker, now in the other place—[Interruption.] Perhaps there is some dispute about the qualifying adjective that I used. He has given every school staff room of the country Baker days. The new Leader of the House has the opportunity to give us Mrs. Beckett's calendar, and I hope that she will do so.
§ Caroline Flint (Don Valley)May I join my colleagues in congratulating my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Leader of the House? I am sure that, as the former President of the Board of Trade, she will bring experience in dealing with employers, who often do not want to consider change. When she addresses the issue of modernisation, and compares it with her task at the Board of Trade, she will realise that people in the House are a much harder bunch to crack than some of our major employers.
I want to continue on the same theme as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and specifically to deal with the issue of child care and family-friendly policies in the House, not just for the 659 MPs but for the many thousands of employees who work here every day for MPs and for the House. In the past 15 months, as a new Member of Parliament, I have tried not to rush in and suggest ways in which the House could improve and modernise. I have got involved in my work in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on which I am proud to serve, and I have thought about how my work has been affected and have listened to other hon. Members who are more experienced than I am. I have come to the conclusion that there is room for change.
More than 300 of my constituents have visited the House in the past year, and, whenever possible, I have guided them round. In preparation for that, I have learnt about the building and its history. I have been struck by how much this place has changed. It has accommodated parliamentary reform: the people who are elected to the House have changed, and the enfranchisement of the population has brought about changes. The building has been adapted and modernised to accommodate the changes. Change has unfortunately sometimes been necessary as a result of fires or bombs. I hope that we do not have to resort to such drastic measures before the Modernisation Committee recognises that we can develop and change the building while maintaining the traditions that my constituents enjoy and like to see when they visit the House.
My constituents enjoy learning about the history of the struggles for democracy in the United Kingdom and about the traditions of the House, as do I, being a history graduate. However, they are bewildered by our legislative procedures and by the working lives of MPs and those who work with them. The Modernisation Committee could take the lead on this issue, and could make ground-breaking progress towards making the House fit for the 21st century while respecting its traditions. It must be a modern place of work.
We need fully to consider how this place can become a family-friendly environment. We must remind ourselves what the Government are asking employers outside the House. In their Green Paper, "Meeting the Childcare Challenge", they said: 314
Employers have a vital role to play in delivering the strategy. We want to encourage and enable more employers to support childcare and adopt family friendly employment practices to help their employees to balance work and family life.If we face that challenge in the House and improve the opportunities for staff to combine family life and work, we will send out a good message to employers throughout the country. If we can find solutions in this place, they can certainly be found in other places of employment.I welcomed the Administration Committee's decision to conduct a survey of the child care needs of staff and MPs. However, I was disappointed with the outcome of that survey, as were the hon. Members who signed my early-day motion 1556. Rather than being a springboard for further debate on this important issue, it drew a line in the sand and said that we now needed closure.
The Administration Committee pointed out that only just under 300 people said that they would be keen to use a child-care facility on site. The Committee considered that a poor response, but I think that it was pretty good when one considers that people were responding to a survey in a situation where there are no child care facilities on site. Having established two workplace nurseries, my experience is that demand increases once a facility is established. The number using such facilities would be greater once they were provided and staff could plan their child care better. Many probably already have to look elsewhere for such provision.
It is interesting to note that of those who replied to the survey, 79 per cent. were in favour of child care and, of those, only 23 per cent. had children aged 12 and under. That is important because it demonstrates that staff, whether or not they have children, recognise that family life is important and that they could support better child care provision to help their colleagues with young families.
If we started with a blank sheet it would be easy to improve facilities in the House, and outlooks and attitudes. I have high hopes that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will address such issues from the outset. For us, the challenge is greater. We must stretch our imagination to envisage a different way of organising things.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has tabled an amendment to my early-day motion. As someone who is concerned about issues relating to children who are looked after, I respect his opinion, but I challenge his statement that
the payment of childcare vouchers allows parents to choose high quality childcare closer to home in a more child-centred milieu than the Palace of Westminster.In addressing the child care needs of people in this place, rather than presenting them with something which they have to accept, we must offer diversity and variety.It is important to remember that child care initiatives have developed in the most unusual places. During the second world war, child care was much in demand when women had to service industries while men were away at war. That challenge was taken up by creating child care in the factories and workplaces, enabling women to work so that we could win the war.
If we look outside the House, which it is important to do, we find imaginative schemes have been established by employers, sometimes on their own and sometimes in partnership with others, in order to develop imaginative 315 solutions to their employees' child care needs. The European Parliament has already established a nursery. Therefore, we should not be too constricted by the need to provide a child-centred facility. What is important is that what we provide should be of good quality and accessible. As I have said, the building has adapted many times during the centuries and can adapt again.
The Administration Committee made several points in objecting to considering child care in more detail. One point that it made was that it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to subsidise child care in this place. That is a bit rich because the taxpayer subsides many facilities in the House, whether catering, staff or offices. Facilities are subsidised in all sorts of ways to create a good working environment so that staff and Members of Parliament can do their job, and child care should be no exception. Child care provided for employees has been proven to go some way towards retaining skilled staff while helping people to cope with family life and work. That argument by the Administration Committee was a bit below the belt and did not fit in with all the other facilities subsidised by the taxpayer in the House.
Just down the road in Whitehall, Departments are addressing child care issues and family friendly policies: the Administration Committee and others concerned with the issue have plenty of examples in their search for advice and other options.
Most disappointing was the fact that the Administration Committee, having conducted a survey, which I welcome and applaud, and having received the report from the organisation which conducted that research, refused to hear from anyone else. My early-day motion asks the Committee to invite others with an interest in the area, perhaps employers who may be able to show by example what can be achieved, to contribute in order further to open up the debate.
I am chair of the all-party group on child care, which, after the recess, is looking forward to hearing a representative from the Department of the Serjeant at Arms speak on child care in the House. I welcome all hon. Members to that meeting.
It is vital that child care is one part of a modernising agenda and that we recognise that if we cannot find solutions it is difficult to ask others to do so elsewhere. I invite the Administration Committee to think again about the matter and allow the debate to be opened up once more.
§ Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)It is said that politicians develop thick skins, but, in health terms, we often do not think too much about skin. We tend to concentrate on the health of our internal organs, eyes and limbs, but not on our skin—until people suffer burns. People with serious burns need skin grafts or skin transplants. Skin can be taken from other parts of a patient's body, but when a person suffers extensive burns, that is not possible. Other people's skin has to be used. Therefore, it is important that Britain has skin-banking facilities. Skin transplants are permitted under the Human Tissue Act 1961, but we do not have a national skin bank and that is one of the deficiencies of our health service.
We do, however, have one purpose-built skin bank, at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton—the Stephen Kirby skin bank. It is the only dedicated establishment in Britain 316 where skin can be retrieved, treated and stored. Its very existence is the result of a tragic but remarkable story that is dear to the hearts of people in my part of the country.
In May 1994, Stephen Kirby and his family were taking a camping holiday in France when, in the early hours of one morning, their tent caught fire. Stephen helped his wife and daughter out of their tent but, sadly, his five-year-old son died. In rescuing his family, Stephen suffered 90 per cent. burns, and his daughter 25 per cent. burns. Stephen's wife, Kim, was devastated.
Stephen was taken to the burns unit at Queen Mary's hospital, but his family were told that without skin he would die within three days. At that time, there was no facility to provide a supply of skin, so 12 members of his family and friends donated skin. Skin was removed from their bodies under general anaesthetic, but their recovery was extremely painful. Stephen's eventual death gave them even greater pain.
Stephen's wife Kim decided that something must be done, so, with the help of a family friend, Nick Brighouse, they persuaded the Eastern Daily Press—the daily paper serving our area—to launch an appeal, with a view to establishing the first skin bank in the United Kingdom. That appeal captured the imagination and the hearts of people in Norfolk and north Suffolk and the target of £100,000 was reached in 14 weeks. Schools throughout the area, including the one at which I was teaching at the time, vigorously supported the appeal, and pupils found all sorts of ways of gathering money.
Eventually, £250,000 was raised, and the Stephen Kirby skin bank was opened in March 1986 by Kim Kirby and Simon Weston—who, hon. Members will remember, was the officer who suffered appalling burns during the Falklands war. When he performed the ceremony he said that, had a skin bank existed then, he would have been saved 28 operations.
Today, the skin bank stands as a memorial to the late Stephen Kirby. It is the first purpose-built dedicated skin bank in the country and it stores skin from cadaver donors. No other replacement for skin is as effective as skin itself, which prevents infection and loss of blood, encourages healing, reduces pain and can reduce the length of time spent in hospital. The Stephen Kirby foundation has established a research facility continually to refine and improve methods of storing, processing and using donated skin.
Each year, numerous people sustain burns, many so extensive that those people have not enough of their own skin to replace the burnt skin. Burns units throughout the country must therefore obtain donated skin, and they can do so only from the Stephen Kirby skin bank—although skin is sometimes brought in from Holland and other countries. The Stephen Kirby skin bank is successful: this year there were 40 donors, and the bank is continuing despite the transfer of the burns and plastic surgery units to Chelsea and Westminster hospital under the current trust reconfiguration. The Stephen Kirby unit will remain on the Roehampton site, and the company Smith and Nephew is to use it as a service base for tissue culture work later in the year.
Nevertheless, we do not have a proper skin bank system with nationwide cover. Two developments are needed for that to happen. First, we need more skin. I feel strongly—as do the supporters of the skin bank—that skin should feature on donor cards. The position of the Department of 317 Health, as set out in various letters from Ministers in the last and the present Governments, is that it is reluctant to allow that.
A study conducted in 1995 revealed that people were put off the idea by the belief that taking skin from bodies after death would mutilate them. That is not the case. Nick Brighouse, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered a further tragedy when his wife died. He gave me permission to tell the House that, according to her wish, nearly all the skin was removed from her body for use in the skin bank. Having seen her body after the skin had been removed, he said that no one would have any idea that it had been removed. That is the most compelling piece of evidence that the use of skin for donor purposes does not mutilate a deceased person.
I ask the Department to repeat its research, but to include a "priming" question making it clear that the process does not mutilate the body. I believe that those who support the idea of organ donation would then be keen for skin to be included on donor cards.
I understand that the Department plans to improve publicity relating to organ transplants, that a committee has been formed and that a campaign will be launched in the autumn. My friend Mr. Brighouse would welcome the opportunity to be involved in the committee.
Some people fear that, if the idea of skin transplants is taken up with too much enthusiasm, skin will be sold and donors exploited; but that is prohibited by the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989. Our second problem, however, is that there is no national network or national funding for skin transplants. At present, the Stephen Kirby skin bank supplies eight burns units countrywide, in areas as diverse as Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin and London. As the bank's work and produce becomes increasingly recognised, the number of burns units involved is expected to increase. It seems that the present collection of units may be "rationalised" into larger supraregional units, but at present they are having to be fed, and the whole system relies on one hospital trust. I think that it is too much to expect one trust to support a national system.
I want a system of national funding, which would realise the full ambition of Stephen Kirby's widow and friends, and that of the people of East Anglia who supported the cause. The Government have an opportunity to make an innovative advance in the health service at very little extra cost—just a tiny drop of the £21 billion. That would be a credit to the party that founded the national health service.
§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the House's proceedings on important matters, but this morning I have been trying to table questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Table Office is unclear about what title that Minister will use when answering questions after the recess. Will it be "Minister for the Cabinet Office" or "Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster"? I am not sure what the Minister's responsibilities will be.
The Leader of the House is present. I could not ask her this question outside, and I hope that she has heard my point of order. Surely we should know exactly what we can ask the Minister, whose title may well have changed by the time we return after the recess.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat is not a matter for the Chair, but no doubt the Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
§ Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)I join others in congratulating the Leader of the House on her appointment, and wish her well for the future.
This is my fourth Parliament. During my time here, I have found that this place has been devalued. We all have different perspectives. I listen carefully to the cry of "modernisation", but I feel that, in certain respects, modernisation may be the problem rather than the solution.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his splendid speech about Cyprus. He was right to draw our attention to the issues that he mentioned. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I agreed strongly with what he said about grammar schools. One hon. Member—not a Conservative, sadly—benefited from a grammar school education in my constituency. I was concerned to learn of the arrangements for ballots; we have four splendid grammar schools in Southend, and I hope very much that we will keep them.
I also agreed with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said about roads. One reason why I was not present at 9.35 am is the disgraceful length of time that it has taken for the A12 to be improved between the Leytonstone and Gants Hill roundabouts. The fiasco that originally involved Swampy, or whatever he is called, has now been going on for more than five years, and there has been so much delay that the sign announcing the opening of the new road has been taken away.
I agreed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said about quarantine measures, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take it on board.
I want to make four points. The first concerns the fire service. All hon. Members praise the fire service, but it seems to have gone unnoticed that there is already a strike in Essex, and there is shortly to be another in Surrey. I am rather concerned about that. No doubt the Leader of the House will say that it is not the Government's business to become involved, but there is growing anxiety about the disruption.
In 1997, the average amount spent on the fire service in England was £25.77 per head. In Essex, we delivered a service on £23.92 per head. In 1997, the 38 Essex control-room staff handled about 40,000 calls, a 50 per cent. increase since 1988. The speech of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) showed how much we owe the fire service. I am not taking sides in the dispute, but I represent my constituents, and we want an end to it.
The chief fire officer has made five pledges. He has said that there will be no compulsory redundancies; that the number of pumping appliances will not be reduced; that no fire stations will be closed during the year—certainly I will not allow Leigh fire station to close—that minimum standards of fire cover will be unaffected; and that public and firefighter safety will not be adversely affected. The Fire Brigades Union disputes all five points; it is very upset. I do not wish to be political, but there is some confusion in the House. Essex county council is not Conservative controlled: nothing can be done without the agreement of the Labour and Liberal parties. The fire authority has a Labour chairman and a Liberal deputy chairman. The Fire Brigades Union is rather upset by the 319 fact that no formal meeting has taken place. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider asking Ministers to assist.
Secondly, I should like to raise a matter that concerns the Minister with responsibility for school standards. We all salute the efforts of teachers and head teachers, but I am becoming increasingly concerned about some practices. Some teachers and head teachers take early retirement on grounds of stress. That is understood, but it is a little surprising that some of them return rather quickly to the classroom. Another extraordinary practice relates to school inspectors. A minority of teachers and head teachers whose schools have been critically inspected seem to retire early and become inspectors. I took the matter to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who passed it to the chief inspector. He does not necessarily disagree with me, but says that his legal advice is to the effect that a poor teacher or a poor head teacher will not necessarily be a poor inspector.
All hon. Members know about the nightmare that teachers go through when a school is inspected. It can be a traumatic experience and it will not fill teachers with confidence when they realise that some inspectors may have been poor teachers or head teachers. The legal advice is barmy, and perhaps the Leader of the House will have a quiet word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and ask him to check it. School inspection is a serious matter. Teaching is a vocation, and a school inspector's job should not be a soft option. The House should take the matter more seriously.
My third point relates to pre-school playgroups. Each year hon. Members attend a splendid tea party in the Members' Dining Room. We like to have our photographs taken as we make fools of ourselves drawing matchstick figures. We say that pre-school teachers are marvellous, but that seems to be as far as we go in supporting them. All my children have benefited from pre-school playgroups, but the modern trend towards nursery education pre-empts the role of the pre-school playgroup. The groups are right to be concerned about the way in which they are being undermined. Over the past 37 years, 20 million children have benefited from pre-school playgroups. They do a splendid job. Southend has 87 groups serving 3,500 people; the children are aged two, three and four.
In some respects, the growth of nursery education is destroying the value of pre-school playgroups. The Government made a rather clever announcement at our most recent tea party, but I am not sure that all practitioners were convinced. Do the Government value the work of such groups? There is no doubt that all hon. Members witness the consequences of inadequate parenting, and pre-school playgroups have a valuable role in supporting parents. They introduce young children to activities that will later help them to make a success of their schooling.
My final point for the Leader of the House, who is the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, concerns consumer protection. There are many senior citizens in my constituency, which, in that context, ranks 33rd in Britain. Some people whom I would describe as odd job men are exploiting the slight confusion of some senior citizens who want home improvements. Those elderly 320 people are being hoodwinked. I salute an organisation in my constituency that is addressing the problem. Two outstanding gentlemen, one of whom has had nine years experience in the Prison Service, have set up an organisation called the Official Consumer Protection Company to supply a service to homes and businesses and for vehicles. The company is checking on some of those odd job people.
A classic example of one of the company's success stories is that of a local man who was tricked into paying £7,000 in advance for a conservatory. The company to which the money was paid vanished, leaving the job uncompleted. The man is 83 years of age, has suffered a severe stroke and has other health problems. That splendid protection company successfully negotiated with one of its member companies to finish the job free of charge. The Government should encourage such organisations.
§ Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)I shall try to deliver my speech in five minutes. I congratulate the Leader of the House on her appointment. I was one of those who supported her in her bid to become deputy leader of the party—never mind Leader of the House.
I again draw the House's attention to the case of Diarmuid O'Neill. Some hon. Members will recall that, on the morning of 23 September 1996, radio and television news bulletins reported that an IRA suspect had been shot dead in west London. As the news developed, there were reports that the man had been shot in a gun battle and that there had been a bomb factory in the house. The man was Diarmuid O'Neill. It later transpired that Diarmuid was not armed; that no weapons were found on the premises; that the shots had come only from police weapons; and that there had been no explosives on the premises.
The case raises many serious questions about the role of, and reasons for, police media briefings. It also transpired that Mr. O'Neill had been shot six times; that CS gas canisters had been fired at his back; that, with blood pouring from him, he was dragged down the house steps; and that he was denied medical treatment for 25 minutes. Curiously, a similar operation had been carried out at another house that morning, the O'Neill family house, where his brother Shane was arrested, although he was later freed. There were no shots fired at that house and no one was injured. The matter was referred to the Police Complaints Authority and is still with it.
When the issue was raised in the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reported that the progress of the inquiry had been delayed by court proceedings which were about to take place. Those proceedings were held in October, and at them taped evidence confirmed that Diarmuid O'Neill and the people who were with him were seeking to surrender while they were being shot. Six bullets were pumped into Diarmuid O'Neill, although the taped evidence made it clear that his hands were up and that he had informed the police officer that he had no weapons.
The tape-recorded evidence draws out questions that need to be considered by the Police Complaints Authority. For example, why were six bullets pumped into Mr. O'Neill? Why was the action allowed to continue after the officer in charge had left the premises? Why was 321 there no deputy in command of the operation? Why was it decided to shoot Diarmuid O'Neill, and who was responsible for the decision? Why did the police give a false briefing when it was quite clear that morning, soon after the house was examined, that there were no arms or weapons on the premises? Why was Mr. O'Neill carried into the street for medical treatment when paramedics were on hand outside and could have treated him where he lay? Why was medical treatment delayed for so long? Why was it decided to effect the arrests in the manner that has been described, and who was responsible for that decision? Why was CS gas used in breach of the operational plan to use it only to cover withdrawal? In fact, it was used almost as an offensive weapon. Another key question is this: why did a marksman of—as we now gather from the trial—seven years' experience shoot Diarmuid O'Neill six times?
There are questions about the Police Complaints Authority inquiry itself. Why is it that the Metropolitan police itself constitutes the inquiry team? Why is it examining its own actions? That is unusual for a PCA inquiry. In addition, why has there been such a huge delay? PCA inquiries have a service standard: they should report 120 days after an issue is first referred to them. It is now nearly two years since the issue was first referred to the inquiry on 24 September 1996. Why was the officer originally carrying out the PCA inquiry selected when he was about to retire, the discovery being made that he would have to be replaced?
We have now discovered that the PCA team has not so far interviewed the officers who were also in the house at the time of the arrest. This inquiry, the inquiry in relation to my constituent Mr. Ricky Reel and the Lawrence inquiry demonstrate the need for the PCA system to be reviewed. We should go towards a new system of separate professional inquiry teams that produce public inquiries and public reports. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to take that matter back to the Home Secretary.
§ 12 noon
§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new position as the Leader of the House and, in doing so, echo many hon. Members in all parts of the House. She is not entirely unacquainted with that responsibility, although the previous time, she was the shadow Leader of the House. During the time that she held that office, she showed that she had a high regard and affection for this place and we look forward to enlightened leadership under her.
It would also be remiss of me not to pay a brief tribute to the right hon. Lady's predecessor, who is now the Government Chief Whip, a rather interesting transition. It is a bit like going from being lord of the manor to gamekeeper, but I am sure that she will bring great distinction to her new role; she certainly brought distinction to her previous one. I know that I speak for hon. Members in all parts of the House in paying tribute to her for the way in which she sought to discharge what is, by any standard, a very difficult job.
I have referred to it before as a schizophrenic job because the Leader of the House is the Leader of the House of Commons and, in that sense, has a responsibility second only to the Speaker, but, at the same time, the Leader of the House is also a pivotal member of Her 322 Majesty's Government with responsibility to get legislation through. To balance the two duties is not easy. Although we were, from time to time, critical of the previous Leader of the House, I think that, without exception, we felt that she discharged her duties with good faith and real conscientious endeavour.
I hope that the summer Adjournment debate, which is a feature of our proceedings, will never be modernised out of existence because it gives hon. Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to raise matters of particular concern to them. Today, we have ranged from a pet called Penny to Cyprus, an issue of great global importance. Indeed, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was an omnibus speech in itself. He has just about snatched the Amess award for omnibus speeches. He certainly supplied enough headlines for his local paper to last him through the recess.
§ Mr. MacleanThat was the object of the exercise.
§ Sir Patrick CormackMy right hon. Friend certainly discharged it very faithfully.
I refer, alas not in great detail, to each of the speeches that we have heard. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) talked about dignity at work and the problems of bullying. He raised many a wry smile when he talked about career assassination in the context of some of this week's developments, but he made a serious point point I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to address, if not in detail today, at least in correspondence later. Whether she will wish to deal, especially bearing in mind what has happened to her predecessor, with his call for the abolition of whipping is another matter entirely, but, in the spirit of bonhomie at this time of the year, if the Government do decide to abolish whipping, we shall carefully consider whether we can do the same.
We then had a very good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the shadow Deputy Chief Whip. He raised what has happened to the man charged with thinking the unthinkable. All I will say is that we look forward to many distinguished contributions from the Back Benches from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field); there is no more distinguished Member of the House.
My hon. Friend's main argument was a powerful plea for the retention of magistrates courts in those delightful Derbyshire towns of Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock. As one who also comes from a largely rural area where we have magistrates courts, I say that this is a serious matter. I hope that the Leader of the House will draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to my hon. Friend's speech. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will, in turn, take those points carefully into account and, as he does so, bear in mind the origin of the magistracy and how important it is that it should have a local base.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is a great expert on horse racing. He made a powerful plea that Ladbrokes and Coral should not be allowed to merge. He talked about the need for total deregulation, but, throughout his speech, he was casting himself in the role of the punter's friend. I am sure that the punter could have no better friend, other than, perhaps, the Foreign Secretary.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was eloquent on the subject of the chihuahua called Penny and talked about pets and old people. All I will say is that 323 he made an important point and I hope that it will always be regarded with sensitivity, but there are issues, such as hygiene, which those who have charge of local authority dwellings and other such places must always take carefully into account.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)—I am glad to see him here—who has worked indefatigably for the Cypriot cause, made a speech that was no surprise to any of us, but was none the less powerful. The underlying tensions in Cyprus are crucial to NATO as a whole. The thought of having two NATO countries at war with each other should fill us all with grave foreboding. It is crucial that efforts to achieve an honourable settlement in Cyprus, as he called it, should be pursued. We must all hope that that honourable settlement, which has so long evaded those who have pursued it, will be reached sooner rather than later.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made so many pleas that I cannot refer to them all, but I was interested in his talk about the politburo in Cumbria. I totally support his general lines on grammar schools and on the Territorial Army. I hope that the Fourth Battalion King's Own Border Regiment is indeed reprieved and that it will not be reduced to the sort of numbers where it can supply merely the three members that he wanted for the rural development board.
My right hon. Friend talked of the many needs of rural areas and made a powerful point about the loss of farm incomes—46 per cent. down—and the particular plight of hill farmers. They cannot have a more doughty champion than him.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), a veritable chip off the old block of his noble father, talked about the car industry and raised the point about the incredible discrepancy in price. His plea should certainly elicit a good response from the right hon. Lady. We are told that the Labour party was elected by Mondeo man and as the Mondeo is apparently 58 per cent. more expensive here than in any other country, the right hon. Lady will wish to respond positively, if only to maintain the garnering of votes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the need for passports for pets and quarantine laws. None of us should lose sight of the crucial importance of making sure that the United Kingdom is rabies-free. However, few hon. Members are not persuaded that there is an extremely strong case for careful reconsideration and I hope that we shall soon have a definitive announcement from the Government.
My neighbour, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the need for a long service medal for prison officers. As one who also has an important prison in his constituency, I echo his request. For some time, I have paid a quarterly visit to Featherstone. Indeed, I have been visiting that prison since before it had any inmates and I am always impressed by the dedication of the staff. There is no more difficult job than being a prison officer, and the plea that prison officers should have a long service medal similar to that for the police should not fall on deaf ears. I trust that we shall have a sympathetic response from the right hon. Lady and that she will add her considerable powers of advocacy to the plea made by the hon. Gentleman.
324 The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) would doubtless support that plea as he is a distinguished holder of the OBE. Today, he talked about modernisation. I understand his impatience, but I hope that he will not hassle the right hon. Lady and that she will have a chance to look at the papers. In particular, I hope that she will have the chance to take most carefully into account the considered comments of Madam Speaker on the recent proposals by the Modernisation Committee.
The comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—who could not be bewitched by her appearance or her arguments?—should be taken carefully into account, but she was a little dismissive of the thoroughness with which the Administration Committee has looked at the issue that she raised. Although she is right to campaign for something in which she believes so strongly, she should realise that hon. Members have looked at the matter sympathetically, as was demonstrated by the report of the Administration Committee.
The speech of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made classic use of the debate in an eloquent and moving plea for the establishment of proper skin banks. Nobody listening to his speech could fail to have been deeply touched by the account of the tragedy that afflicted the family of Stephen Kirby. Although I had never considered the donor card point that he made, I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will consider it carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) was not quite up to his mammoth performance before Christmas when his speech ranged from world peace to the palace of varieties at Southend, but still contrived to raise four or five subjects and to make passing reference to two others. I was interested in what he said about standards in schools and the qualifications needed for school inspectors. His points about pre-school playgroups and consumer protection are also important.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised a disturbing case. I could not begin to comment as I am not familiar with it. Although it would be uncharitable to hope that the right hon. Lady could give a definitive response, it is perhaps a subject that would lend itself to a specific half-hour Adjournment debate when we return in the autumn, and I would advise the hon. Gentleman to apply for one. Obviously, it is important that a Home Office Minister should have a proper opportunity to place on record the official response to the disturbing questions that he raised.
We are approaching the end of a fairly long, gruelling time—not the end of the Session because we have a spillover period in the autumn—and it is good that, once again, we have had the opportunity of this debate. As I said at the outset, I very much hope that it is a tradition that will be maintained under the right hon. Lady's leadership of the House.
Finally, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will take a little time off from the constituency duties that inevitably occupy us for most of the recess to have a good holiday and I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all in the House a very pleasant summer.
§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the kindness with which 325 they have welcomed me back to the Dispatch Box in a slightly different capacity. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, it is one in which I have had experience earlier in my career, albeit in opposition. As a result, I am aware of the value of debates such as this one to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and I am very conscious of the importance of preserving it, whatever steps may be taken to modernise the House, as has been the pattern of our development down the years.
Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I shall endeavour to touch on the contributions of the 14 right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, raising a rich variety of subjects. However, if I inadvertently omit something or do not have the time to cover all the points, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raised the important issue of dignity at work and the difficulties that can be involved. He and all hon. Members will know that the Government are determined to encourage the new culture of co-operation and understanding in the workplace that has been developed voluntarily over recent years as many employers realise that it is the way to bring about innovation and to run successful modern companies. I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that we need to spread that culture of co-operation and partnership much more widely. I fear that I would not go so far as to agree with him that abolishing the Whips would contribute to that. Indeed, I do not think that I would dare do that. Perhaps I could gently remind my hon. Friend and the House that, despite what is at times a difficult role, the Whips are very much part of the management of the House and if we were to abolish the present system, I have absolutely no doubt that we should have to find a different way of managing the affairs of so many right hon. and hon. Members with many different concerns, as the debate has shown.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) also said a little about the Modernisation Committee, but mostly spoke about the concerns that he and other Derbyshire Members including my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), have raised before, about the proposed closure of magistrates courts there. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will have taken on board the concerns that have been expressed widely in the locality and in the House. I certainly undertake to draw them to his attention. In particular, I know that he will take on board the observations that the hon. Gentleman made about the concerns of those in rural areas as to whether or not they have what they see as secure access to justice in the locality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) made a most distinguished speech, drawing on his long experience and involvement with the horse-racing industry. He said that his interest was not a pecuniary one. I shall not stray into the comments by my hon. Friends as to whether or not that was because he was not as successful as he might be in the hands of the tipsters, although I am confident that, if he takes the advice of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he will not go far wrong. Certainly, he will know only too well that, even now, I am unable to comment on issues of merger policy. The House will understand his strong defence of the punter in horse racing and of the work and value of that 326 industry, and, indeed, share his view that it is very important that the industry continues to thrive and prosper.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) gave us a flavour of the rich variety of a Member of Parliament's postbag, case load and concerns. I understand, as I am sure does the whole House, the concern of people, particularly of elderly people, who have pets and who value their relationship with them. I shall draw his concerns and his constituent's anxieties to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman raised a separate issue about the potential impact of different methodology on standard spending assessments. I hope that he is aware that such issues are under review; no decisions have been made. It might have been possible from the flavour of his comments to assume that decisions had already been made and announced. That is of course not so. All such issues are under consideration. His comments and the concerns of the different local authorities that he quoted are certainly being taken into account and will be taken into account before any announcements are made.
I have a long-standing relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), which goes back, if I recall correctly, to our previous occupancy of the Whips' Office when things were a little different, since the Government then had no majority to speak of. It was a close, comradely and successful relationship—because it had to be. I know that he has long taken an interest in Cyprus and has long been a strong and powerful advocate of the people of that divided island. He is entirely right to say that it is very important to pursue an honourable settlement. The Government strongly agree with that. We shall do everything that we can in a variety of ways to assist and promote such a settlement.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raised a rich variety of issues—I counted seven. I shall touch only very lightly on some of them. He mentioned, for example, balloting on schools—as did other hon. Members—and how those issues are decided. A casual listener might not have understood that consultation is taking place on how such ballots should be carried out. One might also not have entirely understood from his remarks that those who participate in such ballots are not a random selection of people who are entirely unconcerned with the fate of schools, but local parents. I understand his concerns; no doubt they will be taken on board by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The issue is under continuing discussion and we hope and believe that we can get a satisfactory answer.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border also referred to the closure of the Cumbrian gap and the fact that announcements about the roads programme may be made a little later this week. The House will have to debate the issue that he raised concerning the Territorial Army in due course, as it will the wider issue of rural affairs. He will not expect me to comment on the restructuring of Cumbria county council, which is of course a matter for the council. I was certainly glad to hear, as I am sure that the House and country will be, that he believes that a satisfactory outcome to legislation on puppy farming may be within everyone's grasp. I know that there was considerable concern at the loss of the previous legislation.
327 I was reading this morning comments about political dynasties, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) referred. I am not sure how he came to be omitted from those comments. He is certainly following in a fine tradition not only as an hon. Member but in pursuing the very interests so frequently pursued by his distinguished father. He drew starkly to our attention the important issues raised, particularly in "Panorama". Material raised in that programme has been passed to the Director General of Fair Trading. My hon. Friend may know that, following an approach by the Government, the European Commission is also investigating price disparities in different European Union markets. He also spoke of the need to save energy and to use less-polluting materials. He will be aware that the Government have done what we can to provide fiscal incentives on the matter, including funding for the Energy Saving Trust's powershift programme, which we shall continue to pursue.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who was courteous enough to let me know that he had a meeting and would not be able to remain in the Chamber for the winding-up speech, raised the very important issue of quarantine laws, which concern many. I must admit that I flinched slightly when he warned me in stentorian tones that 12 million pet owners would be hanging on my every word. I fear that I cannot at this moment give him the answer that he sought, but I assure him that I shall ensure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the proper authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) raised the important and interesting issue of the lack of a long service medal for prison officers. Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I believe that those people provide a little-sung and much-needed public service and do not always receive the support and sympathy that they deserve. Let me assure my hon. Friend that there is undoubtedly a growing consensus on the merits of a proposal of the kind that he raised. Consultation is under way. I shall ensure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of my Government colleagues.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) expressed support for modernisation of the House and hope that the slight change that occurs whenever there is a reshuffle will not significantly delay the Modernisation Committee's work. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire for his comments on the point. Of course, there may be some slight delay—I wish more deeply to familiarise myself with the issues in my new capacity—but it will be only small. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and other colleagues on the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House and hope to continue the good work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who previously held my post.
328 My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) raised several important issues about child care. I understand the strength of her case, which she expressed so firmly and clearly. I shall certainly ensure that her views and concerns are brought to the attention of the Administration Committee. I was interested to hear that the Department of the Serjeant at Arms will be represented at a meeting in the overspill period. I am confident that that will assist in taking forward the debate in the way that she sought.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a most moving and deeply serious speech on the availability of skin. I think that everyone in the House felt deep sympathy for the family whose appalling tragedy led to the foundation of the skin bank to which he referred. I shall draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend made an interesting point on record—so that will get wider publicity—about how the statement on the donor card may deter people from donating skin. Everyone will have heard and understood his important points and will, I am sure, take them seriously and take them on board.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) also raised the issue of grammar schools; I have dealt with that. He raised several other points, including the issue of Essex fire service. I am aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate has suggested that the proposals for reform of the Essex fire service have some sound foundation. The inspectorate is also looking at proposals for Surrey. Although it is of course regrettable that a dispute has arisen over the proposals for Essex, I express the hope that it will be readily resolved. He also made comments about teachers taking early retirement and then returning to work, which I shall pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, as I shall his remarks about pre-school playgroups. He asked whether teachers are valued in this House. I recall occasions in the previous 18 years when they suffered blows and knocks. However, I can assure him that this Government value their work, as we do the work undertaken on consumer protection—another important issue that he raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised a serious case and asked a number of extremely pertinent and detailed questions, which I know he will wish to have brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I undertake to do so. I have little doubt that, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, it is an issue that will be aired in the House again.
A point of order was raised regarding questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). His responsibilities will be set out in detail shortly.
I join the hon. Member for South Staffordshire in his regards to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, who previously occupied this post. Her service was distinguished and was warmly welcomed and applauded in the House.