Previous Section Home Page

Column 1083

Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Allan Stewart and

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

NOES

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Atkins, Robert

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Battle, John

Callaghan, Jim

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Crowther, Stan

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Dixon, Don

Eastham, Ken

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Derek

Fraser, John

Gill, Christopher

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gregory, Conal

Hawkins, Christopher

Haynes, Frank

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Illsley, Eric

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Loyden, Eddie

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McWilliam, John

Martlew, Eric

Meale, Alan

Neubert, Michael

O'Brien, William

Patchett, Terry

Pendry, Tom

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Redmond, Martin

Short, Clare

Squire, Robin

Widdecombe, Ann

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tellers for the Noes :

Sir Nicholas Bonsor and

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and committed.

Column 1084

Penzance South Pier Extension Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

9.12 pm

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I hope that this will prove not to be a controversial measure. Its objects are set out in the explanatory statement, which has been made available to hon. Members, and the plans for the proposed works have been properly deposited according to the Standing Orders of the House applying to private business.

The Bill is sought by Penwith district council, which operates and owns Penzance harbour. The measure has two objectives. It was found some time ago that the structure of the south pier was in a poor state, and I regret to report that it has deteriorated further owing to the recent storms. It was thought that, when shoring up and improving the structure of the wall, it would make sense also to build works which could be used for a car park with 320 spaces. The council decided to promote the Bill last year and to authorise its director of housing and public services to draw up detailed plans and proposals to bring forward this joint enterprise.

The estimated cost of the whole project is some £1,750,000. The director of housing and public services has consulted widely--with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Cornwall Trust for Nature Conservation, Cornwall county council's surveyor and with English Heritage.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : I wonder whether the hon. Member can answer the following questions in his preamble to the Bill. Can the facilities be used for the import of coal? Why was it necessary to have so many Lords amendments to the Bill? Why is the director of housing involved when one would have expected the project to come under some other local authority committee?

Mr. Harris : To answer the hon. Gentleman's last point, the director of housing is also the director of public services. I suppose that he fulfils the role of what used to be, to use old-fashioned council terms, the borough surveyor when Penzance had a council of its own. He now fulfils joint roles. Penwith district council is extremely efficiently run and has combined a number of posts.

I had intended to mention coal later. The harbour works can in no way be used for the importation of coal, so I can reassure the hon. Member about that.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : Thank you, I can leave the Chamber now.

Mr. Harris : I urge my hon. Friend to hang around a little longer. As I was explaining, the council has consulted widely and no petitions were presented. In reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) about Lords amendments, I think, with respect, that he may be confusing this Bill with another Bill promoted by Penwith distist council which received Royal Assent a few weeks ago and to which there were a number of amendments in the other place. The Bill that we are discussing today has not yet been to another place. I hope I have reassured him about that.

Column 1085

No petitions have been lodged against the Bill, although I received one letter from a constituent, Mrs. Primrose May, who wrote to me on 29 January saying that she opposed the Bill. Mrs. May is an officer of the Penzance Waterfront Society. Unfortunately, her letter arrived on 30 January, which was the last date for presenting petitions against the Bill in this place. However, I wrote to Mrs. May explaining that she would have an opportunity to petition against the Bill in another place when the Bill goes there, as I hope that it will, and I have fully informed her of her rights.

The society that Mrs. May represents has been concerned about the council's plans to redevelop the harbour area. The Bill is not connected with those plans. As I explained earlier, it is primarily concerned with the safety of the pier and the provision of car parking spaces.

The hon. Members for Don Valley and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have tabled the motion

"That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months." I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Don Valley that this project could not be used for the importation of coal. I believe that to be his primary concern.

Mr. Redmond : I am concerned about the importation of coal. Jobs in my constituency would be affected. The importation of coal would also affect the national interest ; the country cannot afford large imports of fuel. After I became interested in two other private Bills, I noticed that a series of private Bills was going through this place on the nod. I am convinced that 95 per cent. of them ought to be the subject of local planning procedures. There are two aspects to the objection. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand it.

Mr. Harris : I do not misunderstand the objection. I had intended to say that in addition to the hon. Gentleman's objection to certain Bills, I recognised that both he and other hon. Members are concerned about the private Bill procedure. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has drawn attention to its drawbacks. He knows that assurances have been given by the Lord President of the Council to review the private Bill procedure. Let me say, not as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord President but as the Member of Parliament for St. Ives, that I share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the handling of private legislation. Hon. Members may think that the private Bill procedure is a means of circumventing the normal planning procedures. I therefore draw their attention to the provisions in the Bill which make it crystal clear that the normal planning procedures will have to be gone through before the works can be carried out. There is a further safeguard--that before any works can be carried out the council must obtain the Secretary of State's approval. He will have the power to lay down all sorts of

Column 1086

conditions. A planning application has been advertised in the last few days, or is on the point of being advertised, which will give local people, particularly Mrs. May and the members of her society, the opportunity to make representations about the Bill.

My objective is to try to ensure that the Bill is given a Second Reading. Those who object to it will then have an opportunity to object in the proper manner and, if they wish to exercise it, the opportunity to object to the planning application. With those safeguards, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. 9.24 pm

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley) : I wish to raise just one point for clarification. Why did the House of Lords seek to amend the Bill? I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman would intervene and clarify that point.

Mr. Harris : I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that he is confusing this Bill, which has just started its procedure through the House, with a previous Bill published by Penwith district council--the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill. That Bill was amended in the House of Lords. This Bill has not yet gone to the other place. It has just started its procedure through this House and will go to the other place later. The hon. Gentleman is confused between the two Bills.

Mr. Redmond : It says here, "Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill, Lords amendments."

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. We are dealing with the Penzance South Pier Extension Bill. "South Pier Extension" are the operative words. Mr. Harris, you have the floor.

Mr. Harris : I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Don Valley that there are two Bills. One is now an Act. It has completed its passage through both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent about a fortnight ago. That is the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman is referring-- the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill. This is the Penzance South Pier Extension Bill. There are two Bills and two piers and two quite different schemes. One was amended in the House of Lords, but the one that we are dealing with now has just started its proceedings through Parliament and has not yet reached the other place.

Mr. Redmond : I apologise. I asked the Vote Office for the Bills and was given them. I was not interested in the previous private Bill and I did not check it as I should have done. I humbly apologise. Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Madam Deputy Speaker : There being no Member of the Committee of Selection present, the two motions on employment and foreign affairs are not moved.

Column 1087

BISF Houses (Nottingham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

9.26 pm

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : While we are in the mood for apologies, this is the first time that I have spoken since the count at the end of the debate on Members' interests. I should like to apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for any discourtesy deemed to have taken place on that occasion.

An adjournment debate is extremely valuable for a Back-Bench Member. I have been fortunate enough to have raised a couple of Adjournment debates in my brief time in the House, and I have chosen subjects that I felt were important--a written constitution and the role that the House of Commons should play in our democracy. Tonight, fortunately, I have drawn the Adjournment debate again, and I have chosen a different topic, but one of great importance to many of my constituents and to constituents in a number of other places throughout the land.

A large number of people throughout the country live in steel-framed homes either as residents, having purchased those homes, or as council tenants. In my constituency, people were advised, encouraged and cajoled by the Conservative Government to buy the council houses in which they were existing tenants. For many, the knockdown prices under the right-to-buy legislation meant a windfall and a dream come true, which enabled them to buy their own homes. For my constituents who bought those BISF houses, the promises have proved to be hollow. They are the victims of the Conservative Government's right-to-buy policy. They have bought a pig in a poke. Many wish to move but cannot do so. Even when willing buyers are found, they are not regularly being granted mortgages by local building societies because of widespread suspicion among people, including building societies, that the properties are defective. That is the nub of the problem, about which the Government should clearly state their view. If the houses are defective, they should be put on the list of designated designs, thereby enabling the payment of grant to bring them up to scratch. If they are not defective, the Government have a moral duty to ensure that building societies are told in clear terms that they should lend on them so that they can be sold.

Currently, neither option is being put into effect. Thus, my constituents and thousands of others throughout Britain are trapped. They are prisoners in their homes, unable to move or to sell. They are caught with houses of which the widespread view is that they contain serious defects. I underline the fact that those people do not share the Conservative dream of home ownership. Indeed, for many of them it has become a nightmare from which they cannot wake and escape.

Far worse than that is the problem that those people are being denied any hope of changing their circumstances. That is largely due to the behaviour of the Government and--I make no apology for saying--of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I believe that he has behaved appallingly, and I hope that tonight, having been dragged to the House by the award of this Adjournment debate, he will make his position quite clear.

Column 1088

I shall substantiate my view, and if the Minister is magnanimous enough to change his mind, I shall be the first to praise him in Nottingham and elsewhere. If he does not do so, I promise him that this campaign will continue until he does justice by my constituents and people elsewhere.

Having encouraged people to buy their council homes, the Government have walked away from the problem . Their attitude is, "You bought, it's your fault, you take the blame and we shan't help." The Minister has refused to meet not merely me but other Members of Parliament and peers. [Interruption.] He is chuntering from a sedentary position, but if he disputes my comments, I shall gladly give way to him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope) : Will the hon. Gentleman refer to the meetings that he had with the then Under-Secretary with responsibility for housing, who considered the subject exhaustively with him? I hope that he will do so quite soon and put the matter in context. It has been discussed frequently by him and my Department, and offers have been made. One of his colleagues accepted an invitation to visit the building research establishment, but he refused that invitation. He is now making wild allegations and trying to throw mud not only at the Government but at me. I hope that he will play fair this evening.

Mr. Allen : I will take no lectures from the Minister about playing fair. However, I shall put the record straight. I have made no wild allegations. I have made specific charges against the Minister and he has refuted none of them in his intervention. If he wishes to refute any charge, I shall gladly give way and he can then substantiate his accusation about "wild allegations".

The Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), was most generous and magnanimous about giving his time to meet the people who are suffering the dire consequences of having bought these properties. He could not give the guarantees that I sought for those residents, but he took time out of his busy schedule when he paid a visit to Nottingham and when he saw me and some of the residents at his own Department. I thank him publicly for that, as I did at the time.

However, the current Minister has not had the courtesy to agree to such meetings, despite having come to Nottingham and despite me, several peers and residents having made offers to meet him at any time of his choosing. That offer still stands. If the Minister believes that I am making "wild allegations", I suggest that he looks at his English dictionary.

The Minister's decision not to meet those who have suffered the consequences of his policy has now, unfortunately, been supported or abetted in writing by the Prime Minister, who has excused her Minister from meeting these people. That does not reflect well on the Prime Minister, but I am not surprised that the Government are ashamed to meet many Members of this House and the other place and the residents, given their record on the issue. If I had done what the Government have done, I should be anxious to dodge direct talks with people who know the truth.

Even at this late stage I plead with the Minister--not with any great relish, but with whatever it takes. Once

Column 1089

again, whether it involves writing, attending meetings or appearing at his convenience--wherever he chooses and at whatever time he chooses--I, other hon. Members and peers who wish to meet him and all the residents offer to meet him. We ask the Minister please to meet us to hear what we have to say. The Minister need not give any undertaking to act after having met them, but we ask that he listens to the people who suffer because of the policies pursued by this Government and to their solutions on a way out of the problem. Those people feel that they have been sold a pup. It is the political and moral responsibility of the Government to do something about that. Thousands of people need assistance in this matter.

There is now a national campaign by residents of steel-framed houses. At one time, there were many small, isolated campaigns in every area where these properties had been built, but in the past year, as a result of the campaigning efforts of people such as Jane Locke, who has been the unpaid secretary of the campaign in my constituency, and as a result of her committee and its executive having pulled together at tremendous personal cost in terms of money and time, a national campaign to try to get some action to make the homes decent for the families has been established.

The campaign's most outrageous demand has been to be allowed to meet the Minister to put its point of view. We have been assisted ably--again, I must express my gratitude--by unpaid advice from professional people, such as surveyors, who have tried to help the campaign locally and nationally. We have also been assisted by the expert and helpful coverage given to the problem by the TV programme "Advice Shop". That was especially useful, because it helped people throughout the United Kingdom to realise that they were not alone. They had felt that they alone were getting a raw deal ; suddenly they realised that many others were campaigning to try to get some justice done.

The Minister has said of BISF homes that they only need a lick of paint. Without wishing to criticise the Minister personally, I have to say that I feel that that was a most inappropriate comment given that people have been struggling for five years or more to try to get their problems solved. They know, and the Minister knows, that a lick of paint will not help if the cladding is falling off a house. That comment is an insult to those who have worked hard to rectify matters, often at great personal expense. It may have made the Minister feel good for a few passing moments but it did not help those who had to go back to BISF homes.

Apparently, the Minister sees fit to chuckle about it ; he thinks that it is funny. I understand that in his own city the properties have been renovated at a cost of £20,000--

Next Section

  Home Page