Home Page |
Column 489
3.32 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am rising to ask whether you have received any notification from the Government as to whether they intend to make a statement today about the seizure of nuclear trigger devices at Heathrow airport. I am sure that everyone in the House, on both sides, will agree that this is a profoundly important matter, relating not only to national security but to the United Kingdom's relationship with the Government of Iraq. It is something on which it is necessary for the House to hear from the Government very urgently. I should be obliged if the Leader of the House, who is here, could arrange for a statement to be made later today.
Mr. Speaker : The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is indeed a very serious matter. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I invite you to make a statement on the following circumstances? Under Standing Order No. 128, a Select Committee governs the operation and compilation of the Register of Members' Interests. On the Order Paper today, there are 32 parliamentary questions tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). I have given the hon. Gentleman notice that I would raise the point of order. On the last occasion that similar questions were tabled, at a cost of well over £3,000 to the taxpayers, the hon. Member admitted that it had nothing to do with his constituency but that he had tabled the questions on behalf of Price Waterhouse who wanted the information to form a business plan.
This is an abuse of the House. May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to deprecate the practice until the Select Committee on Members' Interests has had an opportunity to examine the matter? I recognise that it is the responsible Select Committee. I had hoped, in the past when I raised this matter, that the publicity would lead to an end of the abuse, but that has not been the case. It would be helpful if you could say whether you prefer that sort of questioning about outside interests when an hon. Member receives several thousand pounds a year in his private income. The questions should not be asked in order to reflect that interest.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member is quite right to say that that is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests, and I understand that that Committee is already looking into that practice.
Column 490
Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) : On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it did not escape your notice that, at the start of Scottish Questions, there was only one Conservative Back Bencher in attendance. In the course of the hour, two other Scottish Back-Bench Conservative Members came into the Chamber, one of whom did not manage to remain until the end of Question Time. Will you convey to them that they have a constitutional responsibility to be here to question the Secretary of State for Scotland and they are not absolved from that by encouraging large numbers of English Members to communicate their wishes?
Mr. Speaker : I like to see the Chamber full for Question Time, but hon. Members' other engagements are not a matter for me.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you observed the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) arriving late during Scottish Questions, asking her question and swanning out again? Would you consider that that is a good way to get a question called?
Mr. Speaker : I think that the hon. Lady had a question on the Order Paper today.
Mr. Speaker : Yes, I know but I do not know why the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) arrived late or may have left early.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Mr. Speaker. In the past, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) used to do exactly the same with agriculture questions, and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has a research assistant who has been approaching all lady Members on the treatise that she is doing on the representation of women in Washington and in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker : I think that the House has weightier matters to discuss this afternoon.
Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Fallon.]
Column 491
3.37 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove from local authorities the power to dispose of land used as playing fields, except in circumstances where ownership is passed on for continued use as playing fields to a recreational association of charitable status under the terms of the Recreational Charities Act 1958. We have all heard of the man who said, "Whenever I feel like taking violent exercise I go to bed and stay there until I feel better." However, there is no doubt that a healthy body aids the mind to be healthy too. Therefore, I think that people who practise sports or keep themselves fit have a healthy mind and a healthy body to boot.
There are two dangers in sport at the moment. First, some local education authorities have for a long time discouraged competitive sport. I number among them the Inner London education authority which, during the past 10 years, has largely discouraged competitive games within school sport. That authority has now changed its position completely after conducting a thorough and careful investigation, and it is now in favour of competitive sports in schools.
Another example of the disastrous discouragement of competitive games is the headmistress in Bristol who banned an egg and spoon race on school sports day because she thought that it would encourage undue competitiveness in children. Nothing could be more absurd. That type of attitude has damaged sport in schools no end. Eight out of ten children in schools today will not keep up a sport after leaving school ; therefore, sport in schools needs every possible encouragement. In addition, with our test team poised on the brink of a possible great victory in the West Indies at this moment, we can see the sheer pleasure for the nation of producing successful international teams. We hope that our soccer team, too, will be successful this evening.
The second danger to sport is the selling of playing fields for building. When playing fields are sold, an amenity is lost which may never be replaced, and the environment is permanently damaged. Competitive sport in schools is regaining popularity, thanks in part to the widespread support of many hon. Members, including the sponsors of the Bill--among them my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), to whom I express my great appreciation. But we still have some way to go because playing fields are continuing to disappear for building. It is said that an area the size of the Isle of Wight is lost every year. That is a huge acreage to lose, bearing in mind the fact that the National Playing Fields Association says that we should have six acres per thousand of the population. Just to achieve that statistic, which is small enough, we should need an extra 6,304 acres of playing fields in the south-east, an extra 2,793 acres in London, an extra 791 acres on Merseyside and an extra 974 acres in the west midlands. Anyone who seeks to oppose the Bill will have to examine his or her conscience and realise that to do so will be to deny opportunities for sport to our children and to adult members of the community. That is the responsibility the House faces.
Column 492
In an Adjournment debate on 12 February, the hon. Member for Vauxhall raised a number of these issues in a remarkable speech and kindly allowed me to refer to sports facilities in my constituency. I shall mention those within the broad national context, because the Bill is concerned with playing fields right across the land. In my constituency, Ealing council is seeking to dispose of 17 acres of playing fields at Cayton road for building development. They are in a heavily built-up area with no other leisure facilities for children or the community, and they are absolutely vital to the community. I understand that the borough is seeking to acquire the substantial playing fields and facilities at the Warren Farm sports complex, but it must be understood that that facility will not serve the neighbourhood of Cayton road. It is too far away and there are no public transport facilities. Moreover, the schools that use the Cayton road playing fields do not want to transfer to Warren Farm and nor do the public. The two sites are not interchangeable. The loss of local facilities will be particularly hard on the young who require not only somewhere close to home where they can play and practise informally but somewhere to spend a few minutes with their friends playing a game. Most hon. Members have had the pleasure of doing that. The Cayton road playing fields must remain playing fields, and my Bill will secure their future.Educational and community playing fields acquired through the public purse require further protection, given that they are disappearing at the rate that I have described. The Government are due to produce a much-needed consultative planning guidance note on planning for sport. They have also recently published a consultative paper proposing changes to deemed consent planning procedures whereby local authorities can grant themselves planning permission for more profitable forms of development in advance of the sale of playing fields.
Do these steps go far enough? I believe not. I propose that local authorities be prevented from disposing of playing fields. Some may consider that an excessive and inflexible requirement, but there is a duty on all of us to look beyond the 20th century and the early 21st century. Land lost for building or for any other purpose is lost for ever, and that should be on the conscience of anyone who opposes the Bill. Future generations will not thank us if we take the short-term view and allow the sporting endowment of a century to be frittered away.
The only way of safeguarding land for public recreation and sport is to establish charitable trusts for a particular area under the Recreational Charities Act 1958. If a local authority wants to dispose of playing fields, it should be allowed to do so only in circumstances in which their use as outdoor playing space is legally assured. Provision should be made for such land to be disposed of to appropriately constituted recreational charities--and not for either private or public building, ever. The land can then continue to be used as playing fields, and will become subject to the charities Act and to the oversight and control of the Charity Commissioners. The Bill will enable people with an interest in the sports facilities in their neighbourhood to take the initiative and to exercise self-help.
In the longer term, my Bill will establish a partnership with local government in introducing expertise and new potential sources of financial support. It will also increase the likelihood of reductions in public expenditure, so that money can be beneficially released for the development of
Column 493
other recreational and community initiatives. The Bill is not mandatory. Its purpose is to protect the recreational or playing fields land bank that is our heritage in such a way that local authorities can, if they choose, transfer the ownership of such land at reasonable cost to responsible bodies within their own communities. The public interest and public benefit of any such transfer will be guaranteed by the limited scope of disposal to recreational charities only.This nation has a particular duty to our children, and to those who are no longer children but who enjoy sport, to ensure that facilities are available to learn sports, and to enhance public enjoyment of them, at all levels and ages, by those of every creed.
3.47 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall) : I do not take second place to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in my zeal to ensure that the existing playing field stock is not only sustained but substantially expanded. I myself was a schoolboy sports enthusiast, and I remain an ardent supporter of sport in general. I oppose the Bill because, although the hon. Member for Ealing, North raises a point of general principle that no right hon. or hon. Member would oppose, he could not resist the temptation to let fly and seriously to attack the Labour- controlled London borough of Ealing, despite the difficulties that confronts it at this time. It is well known in the locality that the hon. Member has been involved in a running battle with Ealing borough council for a considerable time.
The school playing fields to which the hon. Gentleman referred are connected with Ealing Green boys' school in my constituency, with which I have had a great deal to do over many years. With my encouragement, groups of boys from that school come to see debates and 10 o'clock Divisions in this House. From time to time, I visit the school to explain the workings of the House--although occasionally, I find that difficult to do. Never in all those years have I heard any complaint from the school or its headmaster about the local authority's plans for the playing fields of which the hon. Member for Ealing, North spoke.
I wish to put on record the practical difficulties faced by the London borough of Ealing and its plans to allow the Notting Hill housing association to develop 10 of the 17 acres of the Cayton road playing fields for social housing. The rest of the site, which is currently underused grassland, will be developed into a public park. The site is currently used as a sports ground by Ealing Green high school and is some distance from the school. It is not open to the public and has no ecological merit. The council proposes to relocate the school's playing fields if a suitable alternative site can be found, and there is a strong chance of that.
No relocation proposals will be considered without extensive consultation and the school can expect to remain at Cayton road for some time. There was extensive consultation on the proposals last year, including a public meeting organised by the planning and economic development department of the borough council.
On 22 June, the Department of the Environment issued a direction preventing planning permission from being
Column 494
granted. That may have something to do with pressure from the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who will have quite a struggle to retain his seat because of the poll tax. People in flats and young couples who have taken on mortgages on their houses will struggle to pay twice as much under the community charge--Mr. Speaker : Order. We must not widen the debate into that.
Mr. Bidwell : I digress, and I shall now return to the subject. The additional housing that will be provided will help to combat the homelessness crisis and reduce the burden of the bed and breakfast bill on local ratepayers. Ealing has 1,700 people in temporary accommodation and 9,500 households on council waiting lists. The council has been told by central Government to provide 9, 000 new homes in the borough. There is a great scarcity of land for private and public development. At the same time, under the proposals a new park will be opened for public use, and Ealing Green high school will be relocated to an equally suitable site.
No decision on the Cayton road application has yet been made, and the views of local people will be fully considered. The London borough of Ealing will consult Ealing Green high school about finding a suitable site. The public will save because such housing will relieve the colossal cost of bed-and- breakfast accommodation. Those are the facts.
I have been looking up the record of the hon. Member for Ealing, North in debates. He warmly supported the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 against anxieties expressed by some Opposition Members. Locally, he is regarded as the ooslam bird who tries to fly in all directions simultaneously and he will come unstuck because of those antics today.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Richard Tracey, Mr. Denis Howell, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. David Evennett and Mr. David Evans.
Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to remove from local authorities the power to dispose of land used as playing fields, except in circumstances where ownership is passed on for continued use as playing fields to a recreational association of charitable status under the terms of the Recreational Charities Act 1958 : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker : I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts :
Consolidated Fund Act 1990.
Strathclyde Regional Council Order Confirmation Act 1990. British Film Institute Southbank Act 1990.
Birmingham City Council Act 1990.
Column 495
Mr. Speaker : Before we proceed to the allocation of time motion, I must announce to the House that I have selected all the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), with the exception of amendment (c).
3.55 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) : I beg to move
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill :--
Report and Third Reading 1.--(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table :--
Table
Time for
conclusion of
Allotted day!Proceedings!proceedings
First day New Clauses 19, 21 and 22 9:00 p.m.
New Clauses 23 and 26 11:00 p.m.
New Clauses 1 to 6 Midnight
New Clauses 7 and 8 1:00 a.m.
Second day Remaining New Clauses 7:00 p.m.
Amendments to Clauses; New Schedules and amendments to Schedules 9:00 p.m.
Third Reading 10:00 p.m.
(2) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Order of proceedings 2. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken. Dilatory Motions 3. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted day 4.--(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
(3) If an alloted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion ; and on the first allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of three hours.
Private business 5. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Column 496
Conclusion of proceedings 6.--(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, other than the proceedings specified in sub-paragraph (2) below, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)--(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair ;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill) ;
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government ;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded ;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which the Table in paragraph 1 above specifies are to be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put (so far as they are applicable and notwithstanding any Order of the House relating to the order in which the Bill is to be considered) the following Questions (but no others)--
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair ;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill) ;
(c) the Question that the new Schedule (amendment 22) be added to the Bill ;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill ;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded ;
and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock--
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time ;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
(5) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
7.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings. (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended,
Column 497
before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying of supplementing the provisions of this Order.Saving 8. Nothing in this order shall--
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order ; or (
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.
Recommittal 9.--(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation 10. In this Order--
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day ;
"the Bill" means the Social Security Bill.
Hon. Members do not need me to tell them that my right hon. Friends and I do not table timetable motions without due consideration. We believe that it is important for all legislation, including this important Social Security Bill, to be debated and scrutinised properly by Parliament. For that reason alone, it is a matter of importance that one feels obliged to move such a motion, particularly on this fairly short Bill.
It was striking that the Bill's Committee stage was orderly and compact. Subsequently, we reached what I thought was a sensible agreement between the usual channels to allocate a day and a half for Report and Third Reading. Both sides judged that sufficient, so it should have been, and so, indeed, it was. For that reason, I attach some significance to the fact that the motion means that the House will spend more time on the Bill, not less, than was originally planned by the usual channels.
The Committee stage was, in many respects, a model of how the detailed scrutiny processes of the House should operate. Opposition Members moved about 120 amendments, some significant but others less so, and four new clauses which in their view would have improved the Bill. Where the Government were able to agree with them, my right hon. and hon. Friends accepted their points. The Government moved about 145 amendments and the whole process was completed in about 30 hours.
In his remarks at the end of the Committee stage, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security summed it up :
"Some difficult issues have been discussed and I think we have managed to discuss them, despite the vigour and enthusiasm of the Opposition in attacking us, with good humour. That is very important, and in no way would I underestimate the strength of feeling of the Opposition about some of the measures."
Next Section
| Home Page |