| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1171
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir JohnSteen, Anthony
Stern, Michael
Stevens, Lewis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Stokes, Sir John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Sumberg, David
Summerson, Hugo
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Thornton, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tredinnick, David
Trippier, David
Trotter, Neville
Twinn, Dr Ian
Viggers, Peter
Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Waller, Gary
Ward, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Warren, Kenneth
Watts, John
Wells, Bowen
Wheeler, Sir John
Whitney, Ray
Widdecombe, Ann
Wiggin, Jerry
Wilshire, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann
Winterton, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark
Wood, Timothy
Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Yeo, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and
Mr. John M. Taylor.
Question accordingly negatived.
MEMBERS' INTERESTS
Ordered,
That Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Ernie Ross be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Mr. David Evans and Mr. George Howarth be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Durant.]
PETITIONS
Orange Grove Farm
11.41 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : This petition is from one of my constituents who is due to lose her and her husband's home by the action of bailiffs. She has fought many court cases and lost them, often on her own, in a desperate attempt to keep her husband from news that could seriously harm him. Time has caught up with her and she has only this House to which to appeal.
The petition states :
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Mrs. Evelyn May Mason, Orange Grove Farm, 1, Handley Lane, Clay Cross, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, showeth she and her husband are to have bailiffs sent to their home to take possession of their property on 12th April 1990, that this will have a serious adverse effect upon the health and well-being of her Husband as shown by medical evidence, That the loss of their home is excessive and unreasonable restraint for the minor amounts that were initially allegedly outstanding to Rice and Co., Solicitors, Saltergate, Chesterfield.
Wherefore your petitioner prays that your Honourable House will take measures to prevent bailiffs from entering and taking over the home of Herself and her Husband.
And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc. It is signed by Mrs. Mason.
To lie upon the Table.
Column 1172
Human Embryos11.43 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I have the honour to present a petition from the parishioners of St. Aidan's church, Seahouses, Northumberland. The petitioners affirm that the newly fertilised human embryo is a living human, and pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation forbidding any procedure that involves the purchase, sale, discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment-- unless that is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned--and all forms of trans-species fertilisation. The petition has also been signed in the same terms by members of the Alnwick branch of the Catholic Women's League. I support the petitioners in their desire that the House should enact legislation to prevent the use of embryos for research, and I look forward to the opportunity so to vote, now that the House is to have a day dedicated to the subject in the near future.
To lie upon the Table .
11.44 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) : I wish to present a petition which was presented to me after a meeting at my local parish church, St. Joseph's, on Sunday, which was attended by 170 local parishioners, including priests. The petition is presented on behalf of Mrs. Jacoba Cornelius Slee, 3 Davett Close, Leicester, Monsignor O'Down, the Vicar General of Leicestershire and 785 other signatories. It reads as follows :
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled : The Humble Petition of members of St. Joseph's, the Sacred Heart and Our Lady's churches, Leicester, and the members of Leicester, East constituency, sheweth that we affirm that the newly fertilised human embryo is a real, living human being. Therefore, we elcome-- the statement in the report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology, the Warnock report, that "the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation", and its recommendation that the embryo of the human species should be afforded protection in law ; And therefore we oppose-- all such practices as are recommended in the report which discriminate against the embryo or violate his or her human dignity and right to life.
Wherefore your petitioners pray-- that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done soley for the benefit of the embryo concerned) ; and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will for ever pray, etc. To lie upon the Table.
Local Government Finance
11.46 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : This petition was organised by a Mrs. Robinson of 36 Firs avenue, Ashfield in Scunthorpe, and it deals with the issue of the poll tax and how it affects people who are at home with no income, in particular, married women. Mrs.
Column 1173
Robinson attracted 437 signatures from many people, mainly women, who feel aggrieved that the poll tax is an unfair system of taxation. Even though it is meant to be based on individuals, it is people in their position with no income who are expected to pay 100 per cent. of the charge. I very much sympathise with Mrs. Robinson and the many who organised the petition.The petition reads :
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the people of Scunthorpe sheweth That the introduction of the poll tax (community charge) is objectionable to those people, many married women, who are at home with no income of their own, yet are expected to pay 100 per cent. of the poll tax if their partners are working, even though this was supposed to be a tax on individuals.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will replace this unfair and unworkable tax with one which recognises ability to pay and is based on a simpler and fairer system. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.
To lie upon the Table.
Column 1174
Out-patient Services (Cheshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Tony Durant.]
11.47 pm
Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : I should like to thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who has stayed to reply to this Adjournment debate, because he has had a wearying evening up to now and a long day ; but I assure him that it is a matter of great concern to the people of Warrington and Cheshire because it concerns the out-patient services provided in Warrington and Cheshire. During the ambulance dispute, the managers ordered cuts in non-emergency out-patient services. As a result, the number of vehicles available for out-patient services in Warrington was reduced from 10 to three. I must refute right away the statement made on behalf of health service managers by Hugh Lamont of the Merseyside regional health authority, who alleged that these cuts were made because ambulance crews refused to provide out-patient services. I read from a press release of the Warrington health authority, which is signed by Mike Shannon, the unit general manager of the district general hospital, about the industrial action in the ambulance service :
"In order to maintain the emergency ambulance service it is now necessary to reduce the non-emergency workload ambulance staff. As from Tuesday 10th October 1989 there will be no outpatient transport available to walking patients. The inconvenience that this will cause is very much regretted, but the reduction in this service is necessary to sustain the emergency service The geriatric day hospital of the general hospital and the elderly severely mentally day patient unit of Winwick hospital are not affected."
That action was taken by the management. Indeed, the press release recognised the inconvenience that the reduction would cause. It is therefore surprising that, far from beginning to increase provision, the management are trying to maintain the position that applied in Cheshire generally and in Warrington in particular. They have reduced the number of vehicles for out-patient services from 10 to three, despite the discomfort that that would cause, and which was recognised by Mr. Shannon in the press release.
Evidence of that is shown in a memo from Mr. M. J. Lloyd, divisional commander control, Cheshire ambulance service. He said : "At a meeting with the D.H.A. representatives of all Cheshire districts today, the following level of P.T.S. provision was insisted on. It will therefore be actioned from Monday 12 March 1990--no increase in the level of provision that has been operative during the national dispute."
I have already referred to the severe cuts in Warrington and in Cheshire generally. Mr. Lloyd also said :
"In operation requests for transport must always be met with a negative response, it is then up to the person requesting to medically justify the request. Any problems regarding this should result in the person requesting being directed to the relevant unit general manager."
I cite that document as evidence that the Cheshire ambulance service and, indeed, district health authorities throughout Cheshire, are trying to keep provision at the skeleton level that applied during the national dispute. That has already caused many protests from organisations in Warrington and Cheshire generally.
Those cuts were made without consultation with anyone, and certainly without observing the statutory duty to consult the community health councils. I wish to quote a letter sent on 23 March to Mr. Rae, the district general
Column 1175
manager of Warrington health authority, from Mrs. Roylance of Warrington community health council. She said :"The committee is extremely concerned that the decisions referred to have been implemented without consultation."
She goes on to say :
"The CHC questions the basis on which the instructions were issued : (i) the reduction in the level of service represents a significant variation in the provision of service' on which the CHC has a statutory right to be consulted."
That consultation did not take place. Indeed, in a final paragraph, Mrs. Roylance says :
"The Chairman and members of the Council are deeply concerned that the CHC's statutory right to be consulted has been ignored and they request the resumption, without delay, of the level of ambulance service available in Warrington prior to the national dispute, pending the outcome of formal consultation."
It is quite evident that this has upset all the members of the community health council. They make the point that they were not consulted at all in relation to this.
What has happened in Warrington and in Cheshire in relation to out-patient provision--or the lack of it--is, I suggest, a breach of the Government guideline in health circular HC(78)45, which says : "Ambulance services are required to provide or arrange the provision of suitable transport, free of charge, normally to the nearest hospital or treatment centre with hospital based facilities, where the necessary treatment can be obtained, to NHS convalescent homes, dentists' surgeries or Artificial Limb Appliance and Assessment Centres for any patient (emergency or non-emergency) who is considered by a doctor, dentist or midwife to be medically unfit to travel by any other means."
The words "by a doctor, dentist or midwife" are very important in the context of the rest of what I have to say in relation to this matter.
I now have to quote from a press release, again issued by Mr. Mike Shannon, who, I remind the Minister, is not a clinical practitioner but the unit general manager of Warrington health authority. He says--this was issued on 28 March--
"As we know, the recent industrial dispute within the ambulance service has now ended, and great efforts are now being made to reinstate an appropriate service as quickly as possible.
This is being done, but strictly in accordance with the long-established rules within the Health Service that ambulances are not white taxis"--
whatever Mr. Shannon means by white taxis ; I presume he means that a taxi service was being provided, rather than an ambulance service-- "but can be authorised only on medical grounds."
If Mr. Shannon, in referring to a white taxi service, is claiming that the service has been abused and ambulances have been ordered on other than medical grounds, he gives no examples.
The unit general manager has no right to question in this way the clinical judgment of doctors, dentists and midwives. Now, of course, ambulances will be allowed not on medical grounds but on the whim of the unit general manager. In his reply to Mrs. Roylance he claims that these services are strictly in accordance with NHS rules, but they are not. He goes on to say :
"Ambulance services are authorised by clinical staff."
So far, so good, but then he says :
"If there is a dispute between the requester and the ambulance staff, I am called upon to arbitrate."
The unit general manager may have many worthy and endearing qualities, but why should he be called upon to
| Next Section
| Home Page |