| Previous Section | Home Page |
BLASPHEMY (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
CONTROL OF AMUSEMENT ARCADES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
EDUCATION (SCHOOL GOVERNING BODIES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
GREYHOUND BETTING LEVY BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [16 February].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 20 April.
FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, I should like to move the Second Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is present.
Mr. Cohen : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the confusion ; I was merely trying to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). So that we may know when the close season for hare coursing starts, is it in order for the hon. Member for
Column 862
Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) to give us the information? Many hon. Members who support the Bill would like to talk to him about it--Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
TERM AND QUARTER DAYS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 27 April.
Mr. Cohen : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was correct in saying that it was the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) who objected to my Bill. According to my recollection, it was the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham).
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. If one voice has been raised in objection, the Chair must take that objection.
Mr. Corbyn : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a great deal of confusion among Conservative Members. The hon. Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick)--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman may think that there is confusion in the House, but the important point is that there is no confusion in the Chair.
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
MARRIAGE (REGISTRATION OF BUILDINGS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 April.
RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES (BENEFITS) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker : I have to decline to propose the question on this Bill, as it duplicates a new clause proposed to the Social Security Bill and rejected by the House.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the new clause proposed in the Social Security Bill--which is similar, but not identical to this Bill--was rejected by the House, surely this Bill is in order because it is a separate matter on which the House has not decided because it is not identical to that new clause.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. In fact, there is a more significant matter, which is that the Bill has not been moved.
Column 863
House of Commons Members' Fund
2.35 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : I beg to move, That in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981 the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended and the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 of the said Act of 1981 shall be varied as from 1 April 1990, as follows :
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph : 1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £2,916 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,364 per annum whichever is the less : Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £5, 619 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £8, 067 per annum, whichever is the less :
(b) for paragraph 2 of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph :
2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,464 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £3,913 per annum, whichever is the less :
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,808 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring her income up to £5,256 per annum, whichever is the less :
(c) in paragraph 2A of that Schedule for the words the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words :
the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £1,464 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £3,913 per annum, whichever is the less :
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs the Trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,808 or such sum as, in the opinion of the Trustees, will bring his income up to £5,256 per annum, whichever is the less :
(d) in section 2(1) of the said Act of 1981, for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words :
the annual rate of any payments made under section 1 shall be-- (
(a) £1,698 if the payments are made to a past Member ; and (
(b) £849 if the payments are made to the widow or widower of a past Member'.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House also to discuss the next motion on the Order Paper :
That the whole or any part of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and the whole or any part of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated
Column 864
for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 12 of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. act 1984.The motions have been tabled in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who share with me the responsibility, as trustees, of administering the House of Commons Members' Fund.
The purpose of the first resolution is to provide for an increase in the present levels of grants and payments that may be made under the Members' Fund legislation. Those were last revised in April 1989. The proposal now is that they should be increased from 1 April 1990 by about 7.6 per cent., in line with the increases approved for public service and state retirement pensions in February this year. More than 50 years have elapsed since the first Members' Fund Act received the Royal Assent in 1939. During that time --it is important to put it on record that it was not until 1964 that Members of Parliament first became entitled to superannuation benefits as of right--many former Members and their surviving dependants in financially straitened circumstances have been fund beneficiaries. It is a matter of regret that the level of support which successive trustees of the fund have been able to provide for them, over the years, has been extremely modest.
As the House will know, a problem of particular concern to the trustees is that the whereabouts of our former colleagues or their widows or widowers is not always known to us. All hon. Members will have received a copy of a letter from Mr. Dobson, the fund's secretary, about this difficulty, and I am happy to say that there has already been a positive response to our request for help in identifying former colleagues, or their dependants, whose financial circumstances entitle them to assistance from the fund. We have so far received 20 responses, with eight possible new cases. Any further help we can be given by Members in finding possible new beneficiaries of the fund will be most welcome and much appreciated.
The provisions for which I now seek the approval of the House are set out in detail in the motion on the Order Paper, and they can be briefly summarised. Sub-pararaph 1(a) deals with the provision for grants to ex- Members. It is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £2,916, subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £5,364. In the case of ex-Members with longer service and in need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £5,619, subject to an income limit of £8,067 per annum.
Sub-paragraphs 1(b) and (c) deal with the provision for grants to widows and widowers of ex-Members. It is proposed to increase the basic annual grant to £1,464, subject to an income limit, including the grant, of £3,913. Similarly, in the case of widows or widowers of ex-Members who had longer service, and where there is need, the grant may be increased to a maximum of £2,808, subject to an income limit of £5,256.
As to as-of-right payments under the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, sub-paragraph (d) of the motion relates to ex-Members who gave 10 years' service before October 1964, and to the widows or widowers of such Members provided for by the 1981 Act. It is proposed to increase annual payments to £1,698 in the case of ex- Members and to £849 in the case of widows or widowers. The additional annual costs of those increases is estimated to amount to £6,960.
Column 865
The second resolution relates to section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, which authorises the trustees of the Members' fund to make"such periodical or other payments as they think fit"
to ex-Members, or the widows, widowers or children of ex-Members, for
"the purpose of alleviating special hardship".
That section of the Act, together with section 1 of the 1957 Act as amended, provides that in any year, for the purpose of making such payments, the House of Commons may by resolution direct that the whole or any part of the amount contributed by Members, together with up to £22,000 of the Treaury's contribution in the year, be appropriated. The total that may be appropriated under that provision is £37,600.
At present, nine beneficiaries receive payments totalling £15,552 per annum under that section, and the moneys to be appropriated are needed both to continue those payments and to fund any further cases that may arise.
I commend the resolutions to the House, and in doing so I pay further tribute to Jim Dobson and Tony Lewis and to their colleagues in the Fees Office, whose humane concern for the Fund's often very elderly beneficiaries is admired by all of us who see at first hand their work in administering the Fund. They are deserving of the warmest appreciation of the whole House.
2.41 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in congratulating the Fees Office. Anyone referring to the Fees Office finds that everyone there, from Mr. Dobson down, is willing to help in any way that they can. My right hon. Friend's motions are partly a consequence of the very hard work put in by Mr. Jim Dobson and his staff.
Question put and agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
Resolved,
That the whole or any part of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and the whole or any part of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, as amended by the House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions Act 1981, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, as amended by section 12 of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. Act 1984.
Column 866
Infant Mortality (Neuroblastoma)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
2.42 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : When Professor Karol Sikora, the consultant oncologist and radiologist, launched the disturbing report "Caring for Cancer" last Friday, he attracted wide public attention for his statement that thousands of people die of preventable cancer in Britain today. As a cancer specialist, he spoke of British hospitals that are
"more poorly equipped than many in the Third world"
and strongly criticised "badly organised" services for cancer patients.
This debate is about children who suffer from cancer and the widespread belief that much more could be done not only to improve the health care that they receive but sharply to reduce deaths among them. At present, childhood cancers are the third biggest killers of children aged under 14 in this country.
Shortly before Christmas 1988, a normally happy and boisterous three-year- old was taken to his doctor by his mother, who thought that he looked slightly off-colour and that he had a passing infection from which, with the help of one antibiotic or another, he would soon recover and once again be his happy and normal self. When the family GP examined the child, he found a lump in his abdomen. Tests undertaken later showed it to be a neuroblastoma, which is one of the most dangerous forms of childhood cancer.
Within a week the toddler of whom I speak was fighting for his life. By last March, the happy December child was blind in one eye and looked like a victim of the Ethiopian famine. Despite 80 days of the most intensive form of chemotherapy given to children, and 26 treatments with radiotherapy from the latest linear accelerator, sadly the child died.
About one in 10,000 children are believed to be born with a neuroblastoma which, in 95 per cent. of cases, gives rise to symptoms before the age of five. While in some cases the condition goes into remission of its own accord, only 25 per cent. of British children with it survive ; the others are diagnosed too late. Dr. Tom Stuttaford, a former Conservative Member of this House, writing in The Times has said :
"The grief which parents have to suffer is not made any lighter by the knowledge that 90 per cent. of these cancers could be detected at a stage when simple surgical treatment would give an 85 per cent. cure rate, but that the screening of babies which uncovers neuroblastomas is not carried out because of the cost."
Dr. Stuttaford went on to say that in Japan babies are screened for neuroblastoma, that treatment starts there with far higher prospects of success and that, if we screened here, many children's lives could be saved. Dr. Stuttaford, like everyone else, is concerned most about saving life and the relief of suffering, but he also looked at comparative costs. After comparing the current costs to the NHS of treating cases of neuroblastoma, most of which could be saved if simple surgery replaced the present high-tech treatment, he sought to show that screening also made good sense financially. In a subsequent letter to me, he spoke of the urgent need to press the case for screening. He went on :
Column 867
"The screening service has reduced mortality overseas in those areas which have a high incidence of neuroblastomas. There is no reason to suppose that British neuroblastomas would behave differently from foreign neuroblastomas."Not only doctors, but also the bereaved families of children who have died from neuroblastoma say that there are far too many preventable deaths from this scourge. They believe, in the words of a letter I have had from one of the bereaved, that death from neuroblastoma is in most cases now
"a preventable tragedy of childhood".
To discover where the Secretary of State for Health stood on this vitally important matter--using the word "vitally" in its literal sense--I tabled parliamentary questions asking him, first, how many babies were born with neuroblastoma in each of the last five years for which figures were available, and also how many children died of the condition in the same period. The reply, on 27 November last, was a holding answer from the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, as follows :
"I shall let the right hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible."
Thus it seemed that no information was immediately available to Ministers and in fact the substantive reply to my question, again from the Under- Secretary of State, was not given until more than two weeks later, on 12 December, when I was told :
"The latest available data on newly reported cases of childhood neuroblastoma cover the years 1971-80, and indicate that during that period 374 new cases were reported for males aged 0-14 years and 277 cases for females."
The reply concluded :
"The number of deaths from neuroblastoma during this period, or for a later five-year period, could only be determined at
disproportionate cost." --[ Official Report, 12 December 1989 ; Vol. 163 c. 631. ]
So the Department of Health's most up-to-date statistics on the incidence of neuroblastoma are 10 years old and the numbers of children who die, year by year, from this most dangerous form of cancer are unknown to the Government because Ministers think it too costly to collect them.
My concern about the reply of 12 December was widely shared and I sought, in a further parliamentary question, to find out exactly what the Minister's use of the term "disproportionate cost" meant and, in fact, just how much the Government would have to spend to establish the number of more recent child deaths from neuroblastoma. The Under-Secretary of State's reply to my further question was as follows :
"Approximately £1,600."
The reply went on :
"National mortality statistics do not routinely identify neuroblastoma as a cause of death, and this figure represents the estimated staff cost of identifying and extracting this information from the death certificates of all children who have died from cancer."
The Government do not, therefore, know the number of child victims of neuroblastoma--and are now seen as not wanting to know--because they regard £1,600 as too high a price to pay for finding out. By any reckoning, that is a shaming and shocking admission. The reactions of the families and doctors of children affected were not too difficult to predict. Everyone I have discussed the reply with sees it as scandalous and I hope that the Minister will agree that his Department really must take immediate
| Next Section
| Home Page |