| Home Page |
Column 185
Bombing (Carlton Club)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington) : With permission, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a statement about the explosion at the Carlton club, St. James's street last night. In view of the fact that that matter was raised on the Floor of the House last night, when the Lord President indicated that I would consider whether I should make a statement today, I thought that this was the right thing to do.
The explosion occurred at the Carlton club, 70 St. James's street, London, at 8.39 pm yesterday evening. Seven persons were injured by the blast and were taken to Westminster and St. Thomas's hospitals for treatment. None is in any danger, and three were discharged without being detained overnight. The injured include the porter of the club, a former Member of this House and now a Member of the other place, and two uniformed police officers. Our sympathies go to all the injured and their families and we wish them a speedy recovery. The explosion has caused severe damage to the premises, the extent of which has yet to be fully assessed. Forensic examination of the scene is under way. The police believe that a large explosive device had been left in or near the doorway of the club. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but it appears to have been the work of the IRA.
The emergency services reacted with great speed, arriving within minutes of the explosion. I pay tribute to them. It should always be remembered that they face the additional hazard of injury or death from secondary devices designed to kill those who come to save life. The House is united in condemning the attack. Following the recent one on Lord McAlpine's former residence, it does appear as though the IRA is being driven to attack different sorts of target. Whether it strikes at military or civilian targets, barracks or private homes, it is attacking democracy itself and it does not care who is killed or injured in the process.
The apparent change of tactics requires renewed vigilance on the part of everyone. The police, for their part, are constantly reviewing the means by which the threat, as it varies, can be met. I have this morning discussed developments with the commissioner and there is absolutely no doubt about the determination of his force, and other police forces in the United Kingdom, to continue to do everything possible to prevent such outrages and to track down the perpetrators. The House should be aware that much is done every day of the week to prevent, to deter and to combat terrorist activity, and most of it cannot be safely revealed. However, terrorists operate by stealth, surprise and with a callous disregard for life, and from time to time they may register what, by their perverted standards, they regard as a success. It is not something against which, in a free society, anyone can provide an absolute guarantee.
What is needed to support the efforts of the police is renewed and constant vigilance on the part of every citizen. I ask people to report any packages left in public places and suspicious behaviour by individuals. They must not be worried about troubling the police unnecessarily.
We have been here before with the bomb attacks against the public in the 1970s. They did not succeed then, nor will they now.
Column 186
Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : The Opposition utterly condemn the outrage at the Carlton club last night. We express our relief that no one was killed, and we offer our sympathy to those who were injured and our congratulations to the emergency services. We join the Government in making it plain that those who perpetrate such acts have no hope that their savagery will result in a change of policy. The more they use the bomb and the bullet in attempting to achieve their aims, the less likely is it that their campaigns will succeed. We support the Home Secretary's plea that while such threats remain we should all be more vigilant. In a free society it is never possible to provide complete protection against indiscriminate terrorism, but clearly we must do all that we can to reduce the chances of such criminal lunacy killing and maiming innocent men and women.
I have a question for the Home Secretary that he may regard as more contentious. Last night's outrage, like those which have gone before, was in part designed to achieve publicity for the cause that the perpetrators support. May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all of us--politicians, journalists and
broadcasters--consider ways in which publicity can be reduced for people who are prepared to kill and to maim in order that their murderous deeds should be reported in our newspapers and on our television screens? Does the Home Secretary agree that we should be careful not to play into their hands in that regard?
Mr. Waddington : I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. I thought long before making this statement, but the matter was raised on the Floor of the House last night and, as a result of the intervention of the Leader of the House at 10 pm, if I had not risen to make a statement today I think that many people would have wondered why. None the less, the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is extremely valid. We must be extremely reluctant to give unnecessary publicity to the perpetrators of such outrages. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman that we must stress throughout that, whatever the terrorists do, it will not lead to a surrender of democracy and a change in the policies agreed upon in this democratically elected House. The need for vigilance is obvious and there is much that every individual citizen can do to help the police.
Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) : The whole House will endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said in response to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about publicity for such mindless events. I am sure that the House will also join in the sympathy that my right hon. and learned Friend expressed to those involved, and his tribute to the police and to the ambulance and emergency services.
Is not the real tragedy of such terrorist outrages the fact that they are utterly pointless? They cannot possibly achieve their objective in a democratic society. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the speaker on "Thought for the Day" on the BBC, who said that the only effect of such incidents is to put the terrorists outside the ranks of humanity?
Mr. Waddington : I think that such events harden our resolve in this place to stick to the policies that we believe to be right. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that point.
Column 187
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I express our sympathy with those who have been injured and our admiration for the security services on their prompt and helpful intervention.I reaffirm that the only news worthy of promulgation following such an episode is that of steadfastness of the British people--in keeping with the sterling lead set by those in the Province of Northern Ireland through 23 years of terrorism--in rebutting any suggestion that we should change our policies in the face of such outrages.
Mr. Waddington : I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Such barbaric acts have not forced on a democratically elected Government a change in policy in Northern Ireland and they certainly will not have that effect here. A statement of this sort serves another purpose, however--to remind individual citizens of the contribution that they can make. That also makes my statement today worth while.
Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate) : The whole House will be pleased to know that Lord Kaberry, whom I saw a short while ago, is making a remarkable recovery from his ordeal with his usual courage and undaunted spirit. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this despicable act only serves to strengthen the resolve to defeat terrorism in all who value human life, freedom and justice? Will he look into the measures that can be taken to improve devices to detect bombs and see that they are made as freely available as possible?
Mr. Waddington : I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend said in the last part of his supplementary question. As each month and year goes by, one sees the development of new devices that help to prevent outrages of this sort. My hon. Friend echoed the sentiments of other hon. Members in saying that what has happened in the past 24 hours, and what has been happening in recent months, only reinforces our resolve.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that our noble Friend, Lord Kaberry, has made a very good recovery. The porter at the club, Mr. Charles Henry, had an operation last night--he suffered head and other injuries from flying glass--and was put in an intensive care ward. Everyone will be glad to hear that he has since been moved into an ordinary ward and that his condition is stable. We wish him a speedy recovery.
Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) : On behalf of my party, I wish to express relief that nobody was seriously injured or killed in the explosion. Having said that, I hope that I shall not be misunderstood--I echo what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about getting things in perspective--when I say that I do not remember a statement being made in the House when Corporal Maheshkumar Islania and his six-month-old child were killed, or when Private William Robert Davies was killed at Litchfield, or when Heidi Hazell, the wife of a British soldier serving in
Column 188
Germany, was killed. There are many occasions when our soldiers, policemen and civilians are killed in Northern Ireland.It is important that we do not, because an incident such as this happens on our own doorstep, get things out of proportion. The terrorist is not a mindless animal. He calculates carefully the effect that his violence will have on the community. He never seeks justification. He seeks only to add terror to the community that we represent. We must not assist him by overreacting to his actions.
Mr. Waddington : I have a certain amount of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. Before deciding to make this statement, I reflected on it, and it has given me an opportunity to warn. My officials looked up the precedents and I discovered that in 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) made a statement in the House when there was an explosion in central London in the British Airways office which resulted in an injury. It seemed to me that in view of the request made in the House last night, and that statement in 1986, it would not be entirely improper for me to make this statement today.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I sense what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said meets the mood of the House. I shall take one more question from each side of the House and then we must move on.
Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey) : Is it not, nevertheless, significant that the last organisation to bomb the Carlton club was Nazi Germany?
Mr. Waddington : Indeed, I think that one can bracket members of the IRA who perpetrate such outrages with some of the worst villains of history.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : As you, Mr. Speaker rightly interpreted the mood of the House and the needs and wishes of Parliament and the British people that today, tomorrow and the rest should be business as usual and we shall not be influenced by any bomb or bullet on the mainland or elsewhere, will the Home Secretary confirm that there was no warning of the bomb? Does that not add to the mindlessness of the event?
Mr. Waddington : So far as I know, no warning was given. If one had been given, I think that I should have learnt about it by now.
BILL PRESENTED
Licensing of Ticket Sales
Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of ticket sales for sporting events and entertainments and to make further provision with respect to the powers exercisable by local authorities in relation to such sales : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 168.]
Column 189
County Councils (Abolition)
3.46 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish non-metropolitan county councils ; to transfer their functions to the other local authorities in their areas and, in some cases, to other bodies ; and to provide for other matters consequential on, or connected with, the abolition of those councils.
I imagine that a great many of my right hon. and hon. Friends--those who remain--suspect that my intention with the Bill is to entertain them with the misdemeanours of Derbyshire county council. I am afraid that I shall disappoint them.
I shall resist the temptation to spend a full 10 minutes giving chapter and verse about how Derbyshire county council spends more on education than most counties, but gets worse results. I shall resist the temptation to spend too long telling the House how Derbyshire county council spent £2,000 on a party to celebrate the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela.
I shall also resist going into the full details of how Derbyshire county council behaves like a giant jobs agency for the National Union of Public Employees and has taken on an extra 8,000 staff in the past 10 years. I shall also resist explaining how the council rejected one low tender because it came in the wrong colour envelope.
I shall not go fully into the details of how the council's pension fund invested £305,000 in the failed Left-wing News on Sunday newspaper, before getting further embroiled with a former estate agent called Owen Oyston in a series of sleazy deals--including building a resort in the Soviet Union, dubbed by the county council leader as a millionaires' playground, which now looks as though it will never be built despite substantial investment by the council. I shall not elaborate on the details of how a well-known Labour activist, a road ganger dismissed by the council for gross misconduct in the 1970s, was reinstated last year to a well-paid job showing Japanese executives around the county. I shall not go into details of how one defeated Labour county councillor was given a £40,000 per year council post, nor how another ex-Labour councillor was made a director of education at an even larger salary. I shall not go into too much detail--
Several Hon. Members : Tell us the details.
Mr. Oppenheim : My right hon. and hon. Friends tempt me, Mr. Speaker, but I shall resist.
I shall not go into too much detail about how a former Member of the House, Mr. Reg Race, was appointed as a £46,000-per-year county director, before the relationship turned sour and led to his resignation not long afterwards, when he was given a large golden handshake to buy his silence about the goings-on in the council. Finally, I shall not ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to enlarge on his comment that the aforesaid Mr. Race was
"sacked by Derbyshire county council because he was giving it the sort of information about its activities that its members did not want to hear."
I shall not develop those themes.
Column 190
Mr. Speaker : Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not going to do that, perhaps he will get on with what he is going to say.
Mr. Oppenheim : I was about to explain that I do not intend to develop those themes because 10 minutes would be far too short a time to tell of all the idiosyncrasies and profligacies of Derbyshire county council. To use Derbyshire county council as a stick with which to beat other county councils, or as an example to justify their abolition, would be wrong and unfair.
In many ways Derbyshire county council is unique, untypical, the exception and way out on a limb. I wish to make a case for the abolition of the generality of county councils or at least to make a case for giving district, borough and city councils the right to opt out of county council control. In doing so, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) who previously introduced Bills for unitary local authorities.
Unitary local authorities, replacing two layers of local government with one, would lead to more effective provision of services and greater accountability. As many of my hon. Friends know, the two-tier system which prevails in most of the country leaves many people confused and unsure about which council is responsible for which service and, just as importantly, for its cost. Education and social services could be far better provided at a more local level, especially as the increasing complexity of local government means that services which might logically have been run as large units could be better operated as smaller ones.
Abolition will also make life easier for councils. At the moment many of the most talented councillors have to split their time between two bodies, which adds to the difficulty of finding suitable people to be councillors, as most of my hon. Friends are aware. I accept that larger administrative units can be more efficient and can save on administrative costs, but the past 20 years have shown that that is not always necessarily the case, as evidenced by a recent report which showed that in some counties 25 per cent. of the education budget was spent on administration. I accept that some services such as transport would need to be run by larger bodies. Delegated county-wide organisations could best handle such services. I know that some people doubt whether the boroughs and districts could handle this and they argue for the necessity of a higher tier of what they call strategic planning. I remind hon. Members about the GLC. I realise that many of my hon. Friends are racking their brains to try to recall exactly what the GLC was. People outside certainly have difficulty in remembering exactly what the GLC did for them. Despite all the expensive hype during the abolition of the GLC, few now mourn its passing and in general the London boroughs have made a very good job of taking over the services that the GLC once ran-- [Interruption.] I accept that there are some exceptions. That brings me neatly to the Opposition's policy on county council abolition. We all know that in recent years the Labour party has been trying to upgrade its image. Some say that it has achieved some success. Unfortunately, all too often that success is of a faltering kind and there is more to the image than to the substance. For example, we hear that the Opposition have come round to believing in markets after all, but they believe
Column 191
that the markets should be servants rather than masters, for which read, "We politicians will override your free choice when it suits us to do so."The same applies to county councils. I am delighted that the Opposition have shown some progress by coming round to abolition. As always, however, they have ruined it by proposing in part to replace county councils with a regional tier of government which many people will see as super county councils with all the inherent faults of the current system magnified several times. The Opposition should realise that we need fewer tiers of government, not more. We already have the European Community and a national Parliament, as well as county, district and parish councils in most areas. We need to sweep away a layer of government, not add another which will inevitably become a platform for yet more empire-building and expense.
I urge hon. Members to support the Bill. It will not abolish counties, which will remain in place, but it will abolish county councils and bring local government closer to constituents, making it more accountable and helping it to deliver services more effectively.
3.53 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) rose --
Mr. Speaker : Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Barnes : Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill should be entitled "the Abolition of Derbyshire County Council Bill" because that is clearly the intention of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). At every opportunity he seeks to attack Derbyshire county council and to denigrate its activities. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to defend the council and to argue against the hon. Gentleman's bill which, in any case, is inappropriate to the restructuring of local government. Despite many attempts in the House, the hon. Gentleman has failed in his attacks on Derbyshire county council. He mentioned the pension fund, on which he had an Adjournment debate which turned out to be a damp squib, containing nothing that could be levelled against the Derbyshire county council. All the arguments were answered before the debate. Derbyshire county council runs one of the best pension schemes of any shire county.
Despite competition, Derbyshire county council, through its professionalism --not through the efforts of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)--attracted Toyota to Derbyshire. Conservative members were annoyed at Derbyshire county council's entrepreneurial professionalism which they think should be their preserve, but the council beat them at their own game. In addition, Labour won the Derbyshire county council election, despite its being targeted by the Conservative party with Ministers attending in droves in an attempt to achieve a Conservative victory.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley has adopted the Prime Minister's approach to the GLC and other
Column 192
metropolitan authorities such as South Yorkshire, which had the best transport policy in the country, both in terms of future developments and the environment. The policy is, "If you can't beat them, abolish them." The only advantage of such measures is that the Labour party has benefited from the arrival in the House of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), with his previous experience on the GLC. If the hon. Gentleman's Bill were enacted, we would presumably see leading politicians from Derbyshire county council, such as David Bookbinder, in this House dealing readily and easily with Conservative Members.Derbyshire county council has a fine record in areas such as education. It is top in its pupil-teacher ratio, and in special and primary education, and it comes a close second to Nottinghamshire county council in secondary education. Yet such provisions are now being attacked by the Government's poll tax. Any attack should be directed not at Derbyshire county council but at the Government and their stupid formula which, year after year, has attacked Derbyshire's grant. They have even introduced something called grant capping, which few authorities experience. Then the Government introduced the nonsense of the poll tax, from which some Conservative Members in Derbyshire have benefited considerably, making them free riders on the backs of others.
If Derbyshire county council and others were abolished, the services that they provide in a wide range of areas such as planning, highways and education, would have to be picked up by the district councils ; yet the Bill does not provide for the reorganisation of district councils. District authorities which are perfectly capable of running services such as council housing would have a massive additional burden placed on them. That shows that the Bill is a deal of nonsense. It is not there to tackle the problems of local government or to restructure it. It is merely another example of cleverness on the part of the hon. Member for Amber Valley, in trying to attack Derbyshire county council. It is as clever as his other moves, which were also utter failures, when he also tripped up and fell on his face.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill order to be brought in by Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Donald Thompson, Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Charles Wardle, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Nicholas Bennett and Mr. Gerald Howarth.
County Councils (Abolition)
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim accordingly presented a Bill to abolish non- metropolitan county councils ; to transfer their functions to the other local authorities in their areas and, in some cases, to other bodies ; and to provide for other matters consequential on, or connected with, the abolition of those councils : And the same was read a First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
Column 193
Opposition Day
[16th Allotted Day]
Railway Policy
4.1 pm
Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : I beg to move, That this House condemns the Government's failure to produce a co-ordinated transport policy which would allow British Rail to provide a more reliable, safer, more efficient and better quality railway service to maximise its economic and environmental contribution to Britain ; deplores the lost opportunity to provide a high speed, high quality, rail link to the Channel Tunnel, an essential requirement for the industrial areas of Britain, which requires a modern freight rail route of European standards ; and calls on the Government to appoint a Commission to assess the various proposed alternatives for the link, its funding, and its extension beyond London.
Mr. Speaker : I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Prescott : After 10 years of the present Government's policies of privatisation, cuts in public subsidies, continual reorganisation and an anti-rail attitude, British Rail has produced the most expensive, least reliable, less safe, most congested, most uncomfortable and most under- invested rail system of any of the developed European economies.
It fails to make its potential contribution to reducing congestion and to relieving environmental damage, and to provide the necessary high-speed channel tunnel link, thereby reducing the possibility of carrying more freight from rail to road, and from road to rail. All that is primarily to be blamed on the impossible financial framework that the Government have imposed on British Rail and their ideological obsession with private ownership and private financing, so preventing the long-term development of British Rail's full potential, particularly with the arrival of the single European market in 1992.
This month marks 12 months in office for the Secretary of State. The present Government have appointed seven Secretaries of State for Transport, who have each shuffled through the door and changed bits of policy. I recall from previous occasions associated with our mutual former responsibilities for energy matters that the right hon. Gentleman served as Secretary of State for Energy for two years. Anyone who listened to last night's debate on electricity privatisation will appreciate how much of a mess he made of the policy of that Department. The question whether nuclear energy could possibly be part of privatisation was an issue between us then, when I told the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible to privatise the industry with a nuclear element. His response was to refer to me as an economic illiterate. If the right hon. Gentleman will read last night's debate, he may learn who was right and who was wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman has managed to produce in 12 months at the Department of Transport the mess that it took him two years to create at the Department of Energy. He has done serious damage to transport and continues to do so, and that is part of our charge against
Column 194
him. While being concerned constantly with presentation, he has discovered that the reality is dealing with difficult policy decisions. One thing that is regrettable about the Secretary of State is the way that he runs away from public debate on television or radio and in the other media. The televising of Parliament has been enhanced by the fact that the public can arrive at their own judgment when they watch televised debates. The Secretary of State constantly lays down conditions : he wants to go on first ; he wants the last word ; he is not going to this studio ; he wants to sit in a radio cab somewhere else.Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : He is frit.
Mr. Prescott : Yes, as my hon. Friend says, on this occasion he is frit. He will never debate the issues.
This is the third transport debate that we have had in the House, and they have all been called by the Opposition, and not once by the Government wanting to debate their own policy.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given way. At least when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appears on television, he makes sense. What did the hon. Gentleman mean when he appeared on BBC's "On the Record" and used the following phrase :
"if you provide on a bus a kind of camera that can catch people using modern technology and say, These lanes must remain free, 'cause we want to provide the bus ' which already is 1 per cent. of the vehicle movements, carries 30 per cent. of the people whereas with cars, they're 30 per cent. of the vehicle movements--only carrying far less people in movement"-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order, Even I do not understand it. Will the hon. Member please come to the point?
Mr. Leigh : I shall ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question--can he explain himself?
Mr. Prescott : The hon. Gentleman is an idiot. [Interruption.]
Mr Leigh rose--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us get back to railways.
Mr. Leigh : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been called an idiot, and I was merely reading the hon. Gentleman's words from a transcript.
Mr. Speaker : I am a little perplexed, as I thought that this was a railway debate, and I do not think that that has anything to do with it.
Mr. Prescott : It is quite clear that one does not want to give way to fools when we are dealing with serious transport issues. There seems to be a great deal of laughter from the Conservative Benches. For people who have to wait for a bus, a train or any other form of public transport in this country, it is not a laughing matter. I was offered the opportunity to debate with the Secretary of State on "On the Record". However, as I understand it, his policy is quite clear--he does not appear with the Opposition and there is no evidence that he has, in whatever office he has held.
Issues of public importance are best dealt with when people have the opportunity to debate them on the public media rather than in the House. The only chance that we
Column 195
get to debate transport here is when the Opposition table a motion, and if the hon. Member was provided with an opportunity to speak on such an occasion that might be it.Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : Clearly, my hon. Friend has touched Conservative Members on a raw nerve. I try to do justice to the Minister, but the reality is that he is not a free agent. In the press this morning, it was revealed that massive cuts will now invade the south-east to try to balance the books so that we do not need cash subventions. We are the only nation which does not have large cash subventions for the railways. Conservative Members know that, and they know that they are wrong ; hence their ill temper this afternoon.
Mr. Prescott : Yes, we are seeing more and more signs of a departure from policy and a move towards abuse--[ Hon. Members :-- "No."] Yes, abuse. There is no doubt about it. Abuse seems to take the place of debate with the modern Tory party. Conservative Members do not want to debate the issue ; they merely want to abuse. They do not want to listen to the argument or to participate.
Transport is a critical matter. People want to change things and there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on the issue. Unfortunately--this may seem peculiar coming from me--transport has become an ideological issue in this country. In Europe, public money and planning are not ideological issues, to be disputed between the left and the right, that happens only in Britain. Unfortunately, our transport system is suffering because of it. That is the reality of the transport debate, and I hope that we can deal with some of those arguments here today.
The question whether we can deal seriously with transport was brought home to me again this weekend because of Conservative abuse. I was addressing a transport conference in Nottingham about the electrification of the east midlands line, and the desirability of connections with the channel tunnel. When I got out of the conference, I was approached by the press, asking me about a speech made by the Secretary of State for Transport. I was asked nothing about transport issues--purely about the terms of abuse. The Secretary of State was appearing before the Tory ladies' conference. He is a real tiger when he appears before the women of his party. It is at Tory conferences that he gets a standing ovation and is prepared to debate with the people of Britain. On such occasions, he is a real personality. It seems that I have been promoted from the rottweiler of the Conservative party conference to the political vulture of the Tory women's conference. If I am supposed to be a political vulture because I express my views on transport, I feel entitled to say that it is the Prime Minister herself who is to be found running from hospital bed to hospital bed followed by the cameras. I am not saying that that was necessarily wrong--merely that it did not lead the Secretary of State to make similar charges about the right hon. Lady going from accident to accident.
I greatly regret the Secretary of State's remark that I exploit personal grief. I refer the House to a letter to The Guardian from Dr. Jim Swire, who, as the Secretary of State knows, speaks on these matters for the United Kingdom victims' families. He made himself absolutely clear :
| Next Section
| Home Page |