§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
1.30 pm§ Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West)I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was lucky enough to be one of the first Members to take part in the NCVO—National Council for Voluntary Organisations—secondment scheme, which mirrors the work of the Industry and Parliament Trust. As part of my stint, I spent two days with Alcohol Concern, including visiting alcohol misuse counselling services in my constituency. It became clear to me that we urgently need a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse.
I know that the Government are very committed to such a strategy, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will impress on Ministers at the Department of Health the urgency of the matter. If we are serious about wanting to improve our public health, we must tackle alcohol misuse. It crops up in many places—either as a direct cause of ill health or as a key contributory factor.
The impact of alcohol misuse on the national health service and on the family is well known; it also affects teenage pregnancy statistics and vulnerable people. The effects can be seen in exclusions from schools and in social exclusion in the wider sense. The impact is felt in the workplace and in accidents and crime. One in six people attend accident and emergency units as a result of alcohol-related incidents or problems. About 31,300 hospital admissions are due to alcohol dependence syndrome; there is a huge impact on the NHS.
In relation to families, between 60 and 70 per cent. of men who are convicted for assault on their partner committed the assault while under the influence of alcohol. Heavy drinking by parents is a factor in more than 50 per cent. of child protection case conferences. It clearly has a powerful impact in cases of child abuse.
Alcohol misuse affects the vulnerable. About 65 per cent. of suicide attempts are linked to excessive drinking. There are implications for pregnancy—especially teenage pregnancy. About one in five men and one in six women admit to having unsafe sex after drinking too much. That is another strong reason for the urgent introduction of a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse.
It is surely tragedy enough that 11 to 15-year-olds are drinking, but the mean weekly consumption of alcohol among that group rose from about 5.3 units in 1990 to 9.9 units in 1998. About 20 per cent. of excluded pupils were suspended for drinking at school.
Between 20 and 30 per cent. of all accidents are alcohol related; 15 per cent. of drownings and about 39 per cent. of deaths from fire are linked to alcohol. Another alarming statistic is that about 50 per cent. of rough sleepers are alcohol dependent.
I know that the Government are committed to a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will apply some gentle pressure in the way that only he can do to ensure that the strategy is brought forward as a matter of urgency.
I want briefly to raise two other key issues. The first is the siting of mobile phone masts, an issue that is of great concern in my constituency. I praise Harrow council for 1129 the way in which it has sought to ensure that all mobile phone mast applications are carefully considered. Many residents in Salisbury road in the Headstone South ward of my constituency have argued vociferously against the planned siting of a mobile phone mast close to their homes, and the Montesole Court residents have liaised with me about a particular aspect of the process by which mobile phone mast applications are considered. Members of the Pinner Green residents association are also greatly concerned about an application for a mast to be located in their area.
As a matter of urgency, we need to implement the recommendations of the Stewart inquiry. Members on both sides of the House will be frustrated on occasions by the fact that they cannot stop or overturn decisions to grant planning permission to such masts. I share that frustration given the number of masts that have been sited in my constituency. Rather than assuming that the masts are a good thing, we need to ensure that full and proper consideration is given to the siting of the masts through the normal planning process. When permission has been granted for a mast, we should consider whether residents should not be able to appeal against the decision that has been made.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stress to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the need for one of the recommendations of the Stewart inquiry to be implemented. It concluded that, for all base stations including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights should be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process. I hope that that point will be identified as a matter for the immediate attention of planning Ministers.
The final issue that I want to raise is the need for Ministers to encourage the promotion of corporate social and environmental responsibility. In that context, I praise the Co-operative bank, which won an award—the first such award—on the 4 May for the quality of its social reporting. The award was presented by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the bank summed the issue up nicely when it said:
A social reporting award for the UK is long overdue—the process of producing a "warts and all" report can at times be a painful experience, particularly when competitors produce glossy PR brochures which focus on style over substance.The Government should place additional pressure on businesses, particularly large businesses, to follow the auditing and reporting standards set out by AccountAbility—the institute of social and ethical accountability—in its AA1000 standard.With those few remarks on three entirely different subjects, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to encourage action by the Ministers responsible for the issues that I have described.
§ Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle)I believe that the House should consider three matters before rising, all of which are of vital interest to my constituents. Two of those matters are not contentious, merely unaddressed.
First, aircraft noise regulations would give airports statutory authority to fine airlines whose aircraft stray from the official approach and departure flight paths. That 1130 matter is of great interest to many of my constituents. I am sure that the Minister is aware that Manchester airport is a great asset to the area that I am privileged to represent, and is an important employer and wealth provider. However, it causes many of my constituents grave concern, given the disruption that aircraft noise can create.
Many people in my constituency support the idea that the Government should give such powers to airports like Manchester. That would be of great help in reducing the detrimental environmental impact that unnecessary aircraft noise can cause. From experience, I know that the previous Government approved of such regulations in principle. That is also true of the present Government, and, although I am not totally certain, I believe that such regulations exist in draft form. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me and confirm that that is so. I cannot believe that such a beneficial and non-contentious measure would be opposed in the House, so I hope that the Government can find time to introduce it.
The second issue that I wish to raise on my constituents' behalf relates to existing regulations and a promise made in a public inquiry that took place as part of the inquiry on the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road. That section of the road has been built, although the remaining two sections have not, as I shall discuss later. Residents of Chester's Croft live in homes that are classified as mobile homes, although they are permanent, having been in existence for at least 40 years and possibly even longer. The homes have gardens and are raised on bricks, with no wheels in sight.
Chester's Croft is a very pleasant place to live, but it is right next door to the new road. If its residents lived in normal brick-built residential dwellings—permanent homes, as the law would have it—they would have the right to claim compensation for noise generated by the new road running alongside their homes. However, they do not have that right because of the way in which their homes are classified. The Government agree with me that they should have that right, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the other place sent me a letter apologising for the fact that the promised regulations have still not been introduced. The residents have waited for at least six years for such regulations, so, again, I hope that the Government can find time for something that they accept will bring only benefit to my constituents and, I suspect, other hon. Members' constituents as well.
My understanding is that probably since the noble Lord wrote to me to apologise for the delay, the regulations have been and are still being checked by the Department's solicitors. What on earth are they checking? The regulations exist; they simply need to be applied to mobile home owners. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give my constituents some sight of light at the end of a long, dark tunnel as they wait for the promises to be delivered.
As hon. Members can see, there are in my constituency a number of outstanding problems of serious concern to the people who live there. The third matter is the Manchester airport eastern link road, a subject that I have raised so many times in the House that I have almost lost count, but I shall persist until that motorway is completed.
1131 The central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road is in existence. It runs from the A34 south of Cheadle through to the Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford. A junction exists between those villages that was never intended to exist.
A large campaign was mounted, and more than 7,000 people in my constituency signed a petition. The petition was left in post offices; it was not taken around and people were not asked or pressurised to sign it while they were out shopping. People who went into their local post office willingly signed it, asking the Government to help to complete the road.
The Manchester airport eastern link road, one would think, should join the airport. It does not. The main route south of the M56 to Manchester airport means that through Finney lane and Heald Green, where the missing western section should be, there is a narrow road through the village of Heald Green. My constituents there cannot get their cars out of their driveways and on to Finney lane during rush hour.
The eastern section should link up to the A6M Hazel Grove bypass. I see that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is in his place. I shall not say too much about what is, strictly speaking, a matter for him as the local Member of Parliament. I know that he shares my view, and that I will not be expressing any view with which he does not agree. The many hon. Members representing the area want the motorway network completed. What have we got in its place? I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would be willing to tell us, perhaps less politely, outside the Chamber.
We have a study. Wowee! A road network for which my constituents have waited 30 years is again being studied, after umpteen public inquiries into the need for the roads to be completed. That is basically a mechanism for the entire issue to be kicked into touch.
The petition that I mentioned, with more than 7,000 signatures voluntarily given, was presented to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The previous Government gave a starting date for completion of the western section through to the airport and for completion of the eastern section from Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford through to the A523. The A6M is a slightly different story in terms of progress on public inquiries and so on.
My constituents suddenly found that when the Government changed, the new Government took away everything that had been promised to them. I do not wish particularly to get angry or annoyed with the Government, although many of my constituents would. I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament and my communities are not the only communities in the country to have suffered similarly from such decisions.
I merely plead with the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of my constituents to ensure that the study is real, even though I would prefer a decision. We just need the road built. Matters get worse and worse. There is to be a second runway at Manchester airport, and traffic, we know, will increase. We have well over an additional 20,000 to 30,000 car movements a day from shopping centres built alongside the existing section. The pressures are enormous.
1132 I wish that the House could have debated and voted on the matter before we rose. If hon. Members came with me—all would be welcome—to Bramhall and Woodford at one end and Heald Green at the other, and, while they were there, went to Hazel Grove, at the invitation of hon. Member for Hazel Grove, they would see that what I am saying is nothing less than the truth, and it is the message that my constituents desperately want to be heard.
§ Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley)It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) should have spoken about a long, dark tunnel because I want to talk about our railway heritage. I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here today to listen to the debate. Unusually for an Adjournment debate, I shall not ask him or his ministerial colleagues to do anything in particular, other than to give moral support to our railway heritage.
First, I should say that I have five £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Company, which is a non-profit-making company, so I do not receive a dividend. I am also president of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society and vice-president of the Keighley bus museum and the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle railway.
I want to say a few words in praise of railway preservers or preservationists—I am not sure what to call them, but not, as they are sometimes described in the media, railway buffs, anoraks, amateurs or people playing at trains. I dislike such terms intensely. I am talking about men and women with the many skills needed to run a railway professionally in accordance with the precise and high requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. They simply want the pleasure of preserving the nation's industrial, transport and, often, architectural heritage, so that we and future generations can understand and appreciate what went before.
The wonderful assistants in the Library have provided me with a list of UK heritage railways. It starts with the Alford valley railway, the Amberley museum and the Appleby Frodingham Railway Preservation Society, and finishes with the Wensleydale Railway Association, West Clare railway, West Lancashire light railway and West Somerset railway. I do not know a great deal about those railways, but there are approximately 100 railway preservation societies, all staffed by men and women who are dedicated to the preservation of railways, locomotives and carriages.
The preservation society that I know best is the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society so I shall dwell on that, not to the exclusion of all else but, because what has happened during the more than 30 years of that society's history is typical of how railway preservation in Britain has progressed. My late husband, Bob Cryer, started the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society in 1961 as a result of the Beeching closure of the line from Keighley to Oxenhope. He called a meeting which was attended by more than 100 local people. The original idea was that the line should be preserved as a public service, but that was found to be too difficult so the preservation society was established, and still exists.
At that time, only one other railway was operated by volunteers, and that was the Bluebell railway in Sussex. The Keighley and Worth Valley railway was the second 1133 in the country to take on the responsibility of running a railway. I think it is fair to say that the Bluebell railway made the mistake of appointing a "fat controller" or "Sir Topham Hat" to run the railway, and arguments developed between him and the volunteer force. Volunteers like to be treated as what they are—talented, skilled, capable people. I am afraid that what happened with the Bluebell railway did not suggest that that was appreciated, and, subsequently, things started to fall apart fairly quickly. However, the railway changed its schemes later, and I believe that Sir Topham Hat—he was not really called that, of course—was disposed of.
In the Worth Valley railway society, we learned from that mistake. My husband recognised that the railway needed to be run more like a local authority, or a co-operative. Accordingly, a number of committees were formed to run the various departments. The committees have representatives on the railway's central council, and it operates in the same way to this day. It is a highly democratic organisation: those who do the work make the decisions. I do not think there can be any better demonstration of democracy than that.
Things have changed during the railway's history. As I said, we took it over in 1961, but I think that about four years passed before we had the right to run trains over the Worth valley metals. The Worth Valley railway society purchased the line from British Railways on the basis of a sort of hire-purchase agreement, and it opened to traffic in 1967. For the first few years it ran trains only occasionally, but the traffic gradually increased. Currently, we run trains throughout July and August, during bank holiday weeks and at Christmas, and we run plenty of special trains. For instance, in a couple of weeks we shall have a "Thomas the Tank Engine" special day or two. Such events attract many people to the railways.
We need support, but those who give their time and talents to running the railway can do so only if they too are supported by people who pay fares to go on it.
The Government have supported us indirectly, through the heritage lottery fund. The fund has just given the railway money to build sheds at Oxenhope to house the many locomotives and carriages that we now own. It is not only a rare but a large collection, and it needs to be protected from the severe weather that we have in the Worth valley. We hope that the sheds will eventually be erected at Oxenhope; I thank the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for helping us with advice on applying for lottery support.
We also need places to put our engines and carriages during the railway's redevelopment at Oxenhope. They are very old and will need protection. We expect them to be moved to aircraft hangars and other sites across the country.
I hope that what I have said will encourage hon. Members and those outside the House to visit, support and possibly even join railway preservation societies. They can be assured of a warm welcome on the Worth Valley railway and, I am sure, many others.
I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for listening, and, as I say, I hope that my speech will encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to visit and become involved with their local railway preservation societies, wherever they are.
§ Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester)I want to raise an issue that I am constantly warned not to raise on the Floor of the House. I am told that raising it seems like self-interest and whingeing, and sends a signal that whoever raises it does not really want to be a Member of Parliament.
The issue that I want to raise is modernisation of the House of Commons, and changing the role of Members of Parliament. I am aware that it is once more a topical issue, following last week's decision by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) to announce, quite publicly, that she would not stand at the next election. That prompted considerable concern about the workings of the House of Commons. In my maiden speech, after I was elected three years ago, I made some observations about being a Member of Parliament. I was told by a colleague that that was most unwise, it was better to put up with the situation—not moan or complain—and my constituents would not understand if, having worked so hard to get here, I started complaining about the process.
There is a reluctance among some hon. Members in all parts of the House to raise the matter because it makes them seem unhappy with the job. I love the job and enjoy being the Member of Parliament for Winchester—but I am deeply dissatisfied with the process by which we serve. I want that changed not out of self-interest but because I genuinely believe that the manner in which we operate is not good for the country. Other hon. Members will follow the hon. Member for Gloucester, and prospective parliamentary candidates may be discouraged from standing for election.
Over the past week in particular, there has been much press focus on women MPs, who are said to be fed up with the working hours. I believe that there is cross-party disquiet among hon Members of both sexes. If male Members do not argue the point, it will be said that the Blair babes are revolting on the issue when concern goes much wider.
Much time has been spent studying why the electorate are turned off politics. In the mayoral and local council election a few weeks ago, many attempts were made to improve turnout. Watford, example, tried holding elections on Saturday or Sunday, with polling in Asda or Tesco. I welcome those innovations but the evidence is that turnout did not increase in many cases. I believe that one factor turning off the electorate is the workings of Parliament that they see on television every night of the week.
Those who argue for a change in our working hours are not doing so to get to lie in bed longer in the morning or take longer holidays. It is a question of using the time that we have more effectively. I am arguing that we should work not fewer hours, but more sensible hours, and that we should structure the parliamentary week in a much better way. When the Modernisation Committee considers the matter the week after we return from the recess, I hope that it will look carefully at the radical options, which include a fixed working week with fixed hours. We could debate for ever what those hours should be. My personal preference is for a guaranteed finish at 7 o'clock, with a change in the hours of Select Committees, with some sitting in the evening.
1135 In one sense, time is not the issue. The critical factor is predictability, so that one knows what is going to take place. I do not mind staying here until 2 am to debate emergency situations in Kosovo and Sierra Leone or major domestic issues but I object—
§ Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the few weapons available to the Opposition—I will not say whether I approve—is time? Does he propose taking that weapon away from the Opposition?
§ Mr. OatenNo, but I do not believe that that weapon is used by the Opposition. It is used by a couple of hon Members who want to throw the business of the House into chaos. Speeches made by those hon. Members at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning contain no points of substance. I am not convinced that they are a serious challenge to the Government on key issues. Such speeches are designed to play public schoolboy games. I do not believe people have any time for hon Members who do such a thing at that time of night. I am more than happy to be here if the Executive is being held to account. It is not.
When I tell constituents about the time scale that we work to, sometimes going through to 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, they cannot believe that the Government are making critical decisions at that time in the morning. What other sensible organisation would make its most important decisions at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, when hon. Members are tired and often tetchy?
The House of Commons Library has produced a number of figures on how Parliaments operate throughout the world. I have not had a chance to read that in detail, but I believe that we are the Parliament that works longest and that sits until the latest hour, apart from Australia, which sits until 11 o'clock on Mondays, so the Modernisation Committee needs to look carefully at the issue of hours.
I want to move on to some of the other issues, because we are in danger on getting hung up on thinking that modernisation is just about hours. It is about many more things, too. The tag on to the hour issue is electronic voting and the way in which we physically vote in the House of Commons.
I know that the issue has been looked at in the past and that Members have rejected it. I think that the various options confused many Members. That was probably one of the reasons why there was no clear vote in favour of electronic voting. If there is a cut-off point of, say, 10 o'clock, when business is guaranteed to end, because of the voting system, the House can often go through to 11 o'clock or 11.30, if there are four or five votes after that time. Again, that is nonsense.
The argument that we need to have pushing and shoving down two corridors because it is an opportunity for hon. Members to bump into other hon. Members, or indeed to rub shoulders with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does not seem credible. Their voting records suggest that those right hon. Members are not in those corridors anyway, so there is not much chance of bumping into them.
1136 Divisions are one of the rather amusing anecdotes that we can tell in after-dinner speeches. During a tour of the House of Commons, one of the amusing moments is when constituents are made to push and shove through the corridors. Everyone has a good laugh. It is all very funny when we are showing constituents around in the morning. It is a lot less funny and seems very silly when it is done at 11 and 12 o'clock at night. I see no reason why we cannot quickly move to electronic voting to speed up that process.
The image of the House of Commons itself raises wider concerns about why we find it hard to engage the public in politics and to encourage young people in particular to get involved in the political system. If we step back and look at the image that comes across on the television screens, what do we see? For example, there is the issue of whether we can clap in the Chamber. If someone makes a good point, instead of clapping—which is universally accepted throughout the world as the way of showing support and appreciation—we all have to go, "Hear, hear, hear" and we sound like a bunch of farmyard animals. When people watch that on television, they do not understand. They cannot understand why that sort of noise is coming from grown men and women. That turns people off from looking at politics.
There is also the issue of attracting your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Again, when people are looking at the House of Commons, they do not understand why it is that we are all bobbing up and down trying to catch your eye. They write to us asking whether we can make a point on the Floor of the House, raise a question or try to participate in a debate. They do not understand when we say, "I will bob and up and down, but there is no guarantee that I will be called in that debate."
One of the problems is that, often, not many Members are in the Chamber itself. The difficulty is knowing whether they will be able to catch the Speaker's eye during a debate. There must be a better system of guaranteeing fairness, so that both sides can take part in the debate, obviously allowing for spontaneous interest and for interventions to take place in the debate. Surely, there must be a more formal way in which we can guarantee that Members will get individual slots, rather than having to try to catch the Speaker's eye in the rather old-fashioned way of bobbing up and down.
I add another thing about image: the issue of calling hon. Members "hon. Members" and not being able to use the word "you" in the Chamber—I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have not just picked me up on that. There are occasions when the word "you" is used and is not meant to be a deliberate phrase against an individual, but the amount of times that I have been picked up on that in Committee is immensely irritating, and it stops the flow of thought. I find it very difficult. I am amazed at how Members and Deputy Speakers can do it, but I cannot remember the names of the constituencies of hon. Members. I would like to refer to them more often, but feel held back from doing that because we have to call them "hon. Members."
I had hoped to speak for only 10 minutes—to make the point that one of the ways in which the House could be improved would be for hon. Members to speak less—but I beg the House's indulgence to allow me quickly to make two more points, the first of which is on the resources and facilities provided to hon. Members.
1137 Like other hon. Members, I have found it extremely difficult to work within our office cost allowances. Although my bank manager would tell me that I have always been bad with money, I have to say that, as evidence shows that more than 100 Members of Parliament overspent their most recent office cost allowance, we cannot all be bad with money. The allocation that we are given to run our offices is simply not adequate.
By the time that I have paid £12,000 for my rented office in Winchester—where one cannot find a cheaper office—and a similar amount to a researcher and to a secretary, in Westminster, to a dictation secretary, in my constituency, and for computers, I have nothing left. If hon. Members are going to be proper, democratically accountable Members of Parliament, providing a good service, they have a serious problem if they are not being provided with adequate resources to do the job properly.
I believe that the solution lies in having fewer and better-resourced—but also much more accountable—Members of Parliament. That is why I argue that there should be a legal requirement for hon. Members to produce an annual report, which would go to all their constituents, list what they have done, show that they are accountable and try to restore the link between the public's election of someone to this place and their knowledge of what those individuals are doing here, other than disappearing for four or five years.
If we made more resources available to hon. Members, but required them to be accountable, we would also help to restore the role of Members of Parliament, which is not highly valued in many constituencies.
I hope that the Modernisation Committee does not limit its work to narrow changes and to tweaks at the edges. I accept that, in this Parliament, we shall perhaps make progress only on hours and electronic voting. However, I believe that there is an enormous opportunity for the Government—a modernising Government who want to reconsider issues and be positive about creating a new democracy—to do some significant work, to bring in some consultants and to consider examples from around the world, to make real change in the way in which we run democracy.
My hope is based not on self-interest, but on a genuine belief that the way things are being run is not good, that we are turning off good people from coming into politics, and that we are turning off the electorate from the work that we do.
§ Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)I agree with some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). I agree with his concern about the House's long hours—working, as he said, until 2 am or 3 am—which certainly do not deliver better government. I do not agree with everything that he said, but I agree with some of the sentiments that he expressed. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to them.
I should like to raise an issue only briefly, although it is very important issue for one of my constituents—Mr. Whittaker, of Guisborough, which is a market town 1138 in my constituency. He is one of a number of now elderly gentlemen who served this country in uniform in a now largely forgotten episode. He served, between 1952 and 1955, as a corporal in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, based in Abusultan. I should like to concentrate on the circumstances in which he served this country, and on the national service men who served in Egypt and the canal zone between 1950 and 1955.
Their service was largely overshadowed by the fact that, at the same time, the Korean war was raging, and, later, by the wars in Malaya and Borneo and the onset of the Suez crisis. I shall not attempt to argue against, or to justify, their presence in Egypt. They were there as a result of the colonial past meshing with the need to protect something that—in the days when there was still an east of Suez dimension to defence and trade policy—was regarded as a key strategic asset: the Suez canal. The bases were established to protect the canal.
As I said, Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues were national service men, and they probably hoped that their three years in that role would be quiet ones—spent square-bashing or potato-peeling in Aldershot or Catterick. Instead, the then Egyptian Government's abrogation of treaties made between Egypt and the United Kingdom—because of disagreement over management of the canal, and the rise of Nasser's young officers group—resulted in political tension spilling over into riots and guerrilla activity. That activity was intense, involving pitched battles and, sometimes, an armoured response.
In January 1952, for example, C company of the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers had to storm a police barracks in Ishmaelia. Under intense sniper fire, they had to have the support of Centurion tanks from the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, which had to shell the complex. Five British service men were killed in that one episode.
Similar incidents occurred across the canal zone and throughout the complex of British forces bases in the country. Military historians have argued that the intensity of the conflict mirrored the conflict in Palestine—where, some years before, British troops again had to hold the line.
The incidents were, sadly and inevitably, not without casualties. Officially, it is estimated that 55 to 60 British service men were killed by enemy action. The total death loss, however, was far higher. The Suez veterans group estimates that the total number of service dead reached more than 300, with many deaths being caused by accidents, handling live ordinance or mine clearing.
I am speaking in this debate for a simple reason: unbelievably, despite this history, those deaths and the fact that Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues were conscripts in what was essentially a war zone, they have never received official acknowledgement of their service and bravery by the award of the General Service Medal.
I understand that the reason for not making the award was that, in 1952, the Army Council did not consider the canal zone to be a fully fledged active service area. The council's judgment, however, was made in that period and without the benefit of historical oversight, and that view was contradicted by later military judgments, after the Army had had to respond to events as they unfolded. The contradiction has been admitted.
1139 In a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie)—who was replying to my request for the award of the General Service Medal to Mr. Whittaker and his comrades—I was told:
I am aware that service personnel were on declared active service during the certain periods whilst in the Canal Zone.Active service is active service, whether it is spent in a regular campaign between opposing forces or in combating undercover and sporadic guerrilla activity. There is also an analogy with Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend admitted in his letter to me. He went on to say thatmembers of the Armed Forces who serve in Northern Ireland are eligible for the General Service Medal with clasp Northern Ireland.My hon. Friend, to compound the issue, went on to say that service men in Northern Ireland havenever been formally placed on active service.That seems to be pure, absolute rubbish.Let us consider other post-war flashpoints in which British service men have been involved, such as: Kenya, where 10 service men were killed; Malaya, where 509 were killed; Palestine, where 223 were killed; Cyprus, where 73 were killed; the 1956 Suez invasion, in which 12 were killed; Borneo, where 79 were killed; and Aden, where 24 were killed. All those operations were seen as eligible for award of the General Service Medal, and the officers and men who fought in those campaigns can wear their medal ribbons with great pride. Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues are not being allowed to do the same.
I think that it is a matter of total oversight. I believe that the omission is morally wrong. I realise that the line taken by the Ministry of Defence is that the issue has been reviewed, and reviewed by senior military advisers, but those advisers saw no reason to dissent from the Army Council view that contemporary judgment is sounder than retrospective judgment. I beg to disagree with them: I believe that retrospective judgment often is better than contemporary judgment. Retrospective judgment allows for comparison and for historical oversight—which includes matters such as the campaigns that I have listed.
There is a view—to which I do not necessarily subscribe—that the 1952 decision, in the context of that time, was perhaps militarily and politically expedient. It is time for the Ministry of Defence to do some serious research into the reasons for that decision and for all the papers to be produced.
One issue above all should be looked at. I have been told that the one person who, above all others, should have been listened to—the then commander in chief of British forces in the middle east, General Sir Brian Robertson—was of the firm opinion that service men in the canal zone should qualify for the general service medal. The issue should be cleared up once and for all. If General Robertson made such a view clear in correspondence, it alters the entire picture and my constituent, Mr. Whittaker, and his colleagues should get the official recognition that they so richly deserve.
Finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ask the Ministry of Defence to unlock and dust down the archive files from the Army's historical branch and to undertake a full review. I am not alone in making this request. My hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have also 1140 raised the issue of justice for canal zone veterans. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we all want this historical injustice to be rectified. I urge him to speak to the Ministry of Defence and press as strongly as he can for the changes that I have asked for. Thank you for allowing me to raise this important issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East)On Wednesday 12 April, I sought to catch your eye to speak in the debate on asylum seekers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I failed to do so. I am glad that I failed, because I can now add to what I had proposed to say on that occasion to reflect an alarming situation concerning asylum seekers in my constituency and elsewhere in Bournemouth.
At least 10 per cent. of asylum seekers in this country come from countries that are free of persecution. They have minimal grounds for seeking asylum, and instead of a lengthy period awaiting assessment of their claim, followed by a further period for appeal, they should have the fastest of fast-track procedures consistent with international law. There continues to be a case for maintaining a white list of safe countries from which any asylum seekers would more appropriately receive automatic detention.
I am referring to member states of the Council of Europe. The citizens of most of those countries enjoy the best human rights protection in the world. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) in the Chamber. Like me, she is an active member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The human rights protection in member states is legally provided for by the European convention on human rights, which all member states have to ratify and which is enforced by the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which Governments and member states are obliged to honour. Most member states have adopted the convention as part of their domestic law, as we are now doing.
A majority of member states have signed and are ratifying the torture convention, the European social charter, the European cultural convention and the new framework convention on the protection of national minorities. It is therefore reasonable to start from the premise that those who seek asylum on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution from member states of the Council of Europe are the least likely to have a case. Our procedures should reflect that.
I exclude from my arguments those who come from the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, whose recent and current ethnic conflicts provide justifiable grounds for the fear of persecution. However, most of those countries have yet to join the Council of Europe.
Last year, there were 10,000 applications from Council of Europe member states—3,000 more than the previous year. That figure does not include dependants, so the real figure is much higher. The applications come from citizens of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Turkey and other member states. It may not be widely appreciated that each of those countries is subject to a procedure that monitors in the greatest detail the commitments and obligations that they have entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe. That monitoring is done by the Parliamentary Assembly, through its monitoring committee, and separately by the Committee of Ministers.
1141 Apart from the regular fact-finding visits of the rapporteurs, those procedures take the fullest account of reports and submissions from Human Rights Watch, the Helsinki Foundation, Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other non-governmental organisations, including those in the countries concerned. There is no doubt that there is no persecution in Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech and Slovak Republics or Bulgaria, and there are very few grounds for their citizens to seek asylum elsewhere, yet they represent 10 per cent. of the total coming to this country—7,000 last year—costing local authorities £30 million, which is equivalent to nearly 1,000 new police officers.
The Government should introduce the most efficient procedures possible to deal with asylum seekers from Council of Europe member states, in which, as our embassies will confirm, there is no persecution. That should also apply to the backlog of those already here from those countries.
Before someone reminds me, I am aware that there are a lot of dissatisfied Romas—or gypsies—in many of those countries, who complain about police brutality and harassment, the hostility of those who live in their neighbourhoods and an inability to assert their cultural identity. However, those are not grounds for seeking asylum, or for being accepted as seekers of asylum.
The House may be aware that the issue of the failure of Governments to protect their gypsy citizens is awaiting a ruling in the other place, in response to the appeal of a Slovakian gypsy, Mr. Milan Horrath, who arrived here in 1997 seeking asylum for himself and his family. He claimed persecution not by the state that he had left, but by skinhead thugs.
If the House of Lords supported the argument of the Refugee Legal Centre, which is backing Mr. Horrath's appeal, that someone who is threatened with being beaten or killed by skinheads can be a refugee, it would open the floodgates to such claimants. If that happened, I hope that the Government would urgently pursue the issue in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, because there would be many member states that were, in effect, violating the European convention on human rights, and against whom appropriate action would need to be taken, as well as many other member states that would need to be prepared for many more seekers of asylum.
I conclude by describing what is happening in one road in my constituency on the way to the Southbourne Overcliff and beach. The road contains 17 hotels and guest houses among its 79 households, as well as three houses in multiple occupation—HMOs.
A couple of weeks ago, a resident from the road shared with me at my surgery her concerns about what has been happening since those HMOs started accommodating asylum seekers. She told me that the atmosphere has changed for residents and visitors, who are mainly young families, from one of tranquillity, relaxation and contentment to one of threats, fear and alarm. That has been confirmed by many other residents who have phoned my office during the past two weeks, at my suggestion, to share their concerns.
The picture is the same for all of them. Residents are being woken up or kept awake during the night by loud music, shouting, drinking, partying and cars revving and 1142 screeching at all hours. During the day, men, many of whom have mobile phones—my constituents do not know how they can afford them—stand around leering at passers-by, especially young women. There are tales of drinking, shouting and spitting, and of residents having to walk through sick and urine. Windows in the street have been broken by stone-throwers and boarded up.
Many cars are parked on the street; they are old, battered and wrecked—many are without road tax, and, presumably, are also uninsured. If they were abandoned, no one could tell. There is also a report of someone being taken out of one of the HMOs in a body bag.
My constituents are feeling threatened. They can see in their street a decline into seediness and squalor. They fear not just the anti-social behaviour of their new neighbours, but the crime that might just follow. They do not complain for fear of being branded racist, or worse, of being accused of retaliation.
Those who run the 17 hotels and guest houses have every reason to fear that their businesses and livelihoods are now at very real risk. Their regular clientele, built up over years, can be lost through one bad experience. Passing trade will pass on. People's livelihoods are now at risk.
It is understood that Bournemouth has taken more than 300 asylum seekers in a number of hotels and HMOs used by Kent and the London boroughs. Two weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I received a letter from the chairman of the Bournemouth tourism advisory board, Councillor Jacky Harris, emphasising that while Bournemouth wants to play its part in the national dispersal scheme, it is essential for the council to have local control of where asylum seekers are accommodated; it is essential for them and for the community.
It is particularly crucial that nothing is done to discourage visitors and holiday makers from coming to the hotels and guest houses in the designated tourism core planning zones in seaside resorts such as ours where the local economy and jobs rely on tourism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West—who wishes to be associated with these remarks—and I have made representations along those lines to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). I was not encouraged by her reply to me on 18 May, telling me that there is no requirement for one local authority to notify another before placing asylum seekers in accommodation in another local authority area. That has to be changed. Local authorities—particularly those such as Bournemouth, which rely on tourism—must have control over the location of HMOs that take in asylum seekers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and I will now write to the Prime Minister, seeking his personal interest and intervention. Last October, we in Bournemouth welcomed the Prime Minister and his party conference and we were pleased to do so. However, they may not return if they find that their hotels and guest houses are in the same streets as HMOs whose residents are behaving as I have described today.
I look forward to the Minister's response to my constituents' concerns.