| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 656
election. The immediate thought is that San Francisco must be the worst possible place to be in a wheelchair. But because of the very hilly nature of that city, people who depend on wheelchairs have lobbied effectively for years as a political movement and they have browbeaten each mayor or administration into doing something about it. The building regulations in San Francisco make it clear that a public building cannot be opened, whether municipal offices or a cinema, without excellent access for people in wheelchairs. I was in a wheelchair for about two weeks while in San Francisco. One of the few things that I was able to do was to visit the cinema, and I must have gone a dozen times. There was not one occasion when I had a problem getting in. If San Francisco can do it, London can do it.I also noticed that there were dropped kerbs on every street, and on every corner. That is a city with a political will to do it. If we want to give effect to the sentiments of the motion, the Government must step in and provide the legislative framework so that people are forced to comply and create a society in which people in wheelchairs and other people with disabilities can exercise their right.
2.22 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone) : I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I shall curtail my remarks because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has been waiting to make his contribution.
I join in the congratulations that have been extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for tabling this important motion. The first line of the motion mentions promoting opportunities for the disabled. The one fundamental opportunity that we appear to be denying the disabled is the opportunity to be born at all. It is significant that my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea, for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and, trying very hard for his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr.Leigh), who are here to participate in the debate, have also played major and leading roles in the pro-life movement.
I find it hard to reconcile saying that we must spend more on the disabled, that we must take greater care of their needs, that we must recognise them as a special category needing extra help, that there should be no recognisable difference, as far as possible, between their opportunities and the opportunties of their able-bodied fellow humans, and at the same time saying that, before their birth, we create two classes of citizen, the healthy and the able-bodied, who will enjoy protection from the 24th week, and the unhealthy and the disabled who will have no protection at all.
If we create two classes of citizenship before birth, we inevitably create the sort of society and social attitudes that will lead to two classes of citizenship after birth.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : For the last four or five years I have taken Order of Malta Volunteers groups of disabled people to Lourdes every summer. It is not the enormous courage of the disabled people that is so apparent but the good that it does for young, often selfish and privileged people actually to look after disabled people. They should not be swept under the
Column 657
carpet. It is important that the disabled people are among us. Therefore, what my hon. Friend has said is very important.Miss Widdecombe : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I can only repeat what I have said : two classes before birth must inevitably lead to the social attitudes that will lead to two classes after birth.
We live in an age that makes a god of physical perfection and in which the emphasis is not only on being healthy and active--with which I do not quarrel--but on looking and appearing perfect. We live in an age in which a two-year-old child is removed from a playgroup because he has a severe birthmark that is said to disturb and frighten other children and an age in which women who are already beautiful spend fortunes correcting some minor imperfection while the rest of the world starves.
I recall the words of Celeste Hind, a very wonderful woman, who took her child to Canada for surgery because apparently we in this country begrudge major surgery for children suffering from Down's syndrome. The most distressing aspect for her was the attitude of people in this country, including doctors who said, "Oh dear. How did this one get through the net? Didn't you have the test?" If that is our attitude to the disabled when they are very small or young, that will assuredly be our attitude later.
Those of us who were born in the post-war years grew up knowing people who were limbless, and we respected their condition because they sustained those appalling injuries and deformities while preserving the freedom of our nation. When medicine was less well-developed than it is today, most of us remember going to school with children who had to wear leg-irons after contracting poliomyelitis. We accepted them as normal, as part of society, as something everyday. Today, the emphasis is on physical perfection, not letting such people be born, and on insisting that every last finger and toe is in place and that there are no even minor deformities. That insistence is creating two classes of citizens. At the same time, we are living in an age in which, thanks to the Government, there are better carers' benefits, better facilities for the disabled, and more awareness of the need to provide access for them. But while we pay all that lip service to the disabled, we are creating a social attitude that says, "It would be very much better if we didn't have those people among us at all." That is fundamentally wrong and exceedingly dangerous.
Column 658
The decision of the House last week will lead not to a better deal for the disabled but to a much worse one. They will increasingly become not only a minority but one of which we say, "Oh dear. How did they get through the net?"2.27 pm
Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on the way in which he introduced his motion, and I agree with many of his ideas, but I shall immediately comment on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe). I was appalled by the decision taken by the House last week to allow abortion up to birth in the case of disability. I am still deeply shocked by that decision, and I wonder how it will work out in years to come. It is quite appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke of a wide range of disabilities that exist. In my own family, I have relatives who are blind or deaf--and, as a tiny child, I was taught for three years by a speech therapist in West Ham, and I am grateful for that education.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Under a Labour council.
Mr. Amess : I do not know the politics of the person who taught me, but I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the importance of speech therapists.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has had some dealings with foot and mouth artists, and it is an experience when one's host uses her feet to eat the meal. I applaud and pay tribute to the work of the organisation concerned.
Five years ago a young man called Andrew Faulkner was struck down by a virus which left him blind. I am delighted to say that he is taking a training course which will lead to his City and Guilds. He is the first British person to benefit from this scheme at a cost of £60,000 over the past seven months. That certainly shows how much the Government are prepared to invest in training such people. The Basildon disabled sports group is achieving marvellous results. A young man who was in the British paraplegic swimming team, represented us in Seoul in 1988 and won the gold medal for the 50m freestyle. He will represent us in basketball and the national wheelchair competition.
It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Column 659
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Bills
SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question--[11 May]-- That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 July.
PROTECTION OF BADGER SETTS BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee).
Order for consideration read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Consideration what day?
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill was in Committee for three sittings. The promoters of the Bill made great efforts to find some agreement with the fox hunting fraternity. The right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who has just objected to the Bill, was not a member of the Committee. He knows very little about the Bill. I want it to be known that--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 July.
LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Consideration what day?
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.
POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Consideration what day?
Mr. Corbyn : On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July.
RAPE IN MARRIAGE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Consideration what day?
Mr. Corbyn : On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
Column 660
Mr. Corbyn rose --Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Let me anticipate the hon. Gentleman and tell him before he completes his question that it would not be in order.
Mr. Corbyn : I just want to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you heard an objection and if so, from whom?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman apparently also heard the objection. We certainly heard it.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July .
TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords] Order for Second Reading read .
Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July .
CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL) BILL [Lords] Order for Second Reading read .
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Consideration what day?
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On behalf of the Member in charge of the Bill, now.
Mr. Hughes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out to the Government that it would not be impossible for them to agree to this Bill as well as negotiating an international agreement across the river?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Objection has been taken.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July .
RAOUL WALLENBERG (MEMORIAL) BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committee) ,
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 July .
GAMING (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
Ordered ,
That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Gaming (Amendment) Bill [Lords] and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Gale.]
Committee Friday 6 July .
Mr. Tony Banks : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I may have misled the House when on a point of order I accused the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) of having objected to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill. I understand that it was the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison). I would not want all the letters of criticism from people who love badgers to go to the wrong person, so--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Let us move on.
Column 661
Farming (Lincolnshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Wood]
2.34 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you agree that the previous points of order underline the need to end the anonymity of objections to Bills? The right hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) might have been inundated with the wrong pile of letters, but they can now go to the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : We keep wasting the time of the House by going over the same course regularly on private Members' Bills.
I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that identifying an hon. Member who shouts, "Object" is no different from the situation that arises when the Question is put to the House and the Chair collects the voices. In those circumstances neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else would expect that those, singular or plural, who shouted aye or no should be identified. Perhaps we can now get on. Mr. Edward Leigh.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : No. The hon. Gentleman is taking up the valuable time of the hon. Member who has the Adjournment.
Mr. Banks : I am not, as you well know, because the hon. Gentleman will get his half an hour. I shall not delay the House for more than a few seconds.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking time out of that half hour.
Mr. Banks : What you just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) cannot apply to the procedure on Private Members' Bills because the one hon. Member who shouted was not on the Committee and he did not say anything about identifying his intention and--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House on other Fridays when the same situation has arisen. He must not seek to make a speech and I hope that he will carefully reflect on what I said.
2.35 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : I want to use the debate to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the state of the farming industry in my constituency.
Lincolnshire farmers are internationally renowned. They supply about 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom's potatoes and sugar and 10 per cent. of its cooking oil, bacon, poultry and wool. Since the war the Lincolnshire farmers have responded magnificently to the need to ensure that British families have the benefit of a wide variety of safe food at farm-gate prices which are cheaper than elsewhere in the European Community.
Without doubt the county is one of the most progressive, productive and innovative agricultural areas in the world and it is blessed with some of the world's finest soils. Lincolnshire is rightly famous for the vegetables it
Column 662
grows--almost half our domestic vegetable produce comes from the area. The flowers and bulbs of the southern part of the county do much to brighten our homes, but I am proud that north Lincolnshire, which I represent, is the bread basket of England.Agriculture is vital to the rural economy of my area, creating more than 100,000 jobs in allied industries connected with fertilisers, fuel, food processing, freezer centres and so on.
One of the great strengths of farming in the county is the fact that its farms are still largely family concerns. They are run by people who have the care of the countryside in their blood. Over many years they have contributed much to Lincolnshire. The principal problem confronting the farming industry in that region is the extent to which its economy has been hit. That poses real problems for its future. Unless the decline in farm incomes can be arrested, the result may be many family farms going out of business.
I shall illustrate the problem by discussing a farm that I visited recently as part of my continuing efforts to visit any farmer who wants to see me. J. G. Dring and sons at Legsby near Market Rasen farm 1,200 acres. The farm consists of combinable crops, potatoes, sugar beet and beef cattle. Between 1980 and 1989 expenditure increased by some 62 per cent. for electricity, 98 per cent. for machinery operation costs, 83 per cent. for rates and water charges, 75 per cent. for insurance, 126 per cent. for sprays--but only 2 per cent. for fertilisers--a colossal 148 per cent. for seeds, and a staggering 230 per cent. for medication and veterinary fees. The rise in labour costs has been kept at 70 per cent., but only by reducing staff by a quarter.
Against that one should note that, although sales during the same period have increased by 54 per cent., end-product price increases have been small --wheat, barley and rape rose between 7 and 8 per cent. There was no increase for potatoes, peas and beans. The 20 per cent. increase in cattle has, in effect, been lost to bovine spongiform encephalopathy, although I give full marks to the Minister for standing up so magnificently for British farmers. I wish that that could be said for everyone in this House. That illustrates graphically the problems confronting farmers, and it gives rise to considerable concern.
One effect is the loss of full-time jobs in the industry.J. R. Dring now employs only five regular staff on a large farm of 1,200 acres. Nationally, 23,000 full-time jobs were lost in the five years to 1988. The need to cut costs has reduced farm employment to a level where parts of the industry are short of skilled labour. It has also contributed to a much-reduced entry of trainees into the industry. An example was given to me by my local branch of the Country Landowners Association. A tenant in north Lincolnshire--a good farmer on strongish land paying reasonable rents-- grossed only £3,000 in 1989 and is now on family income supplement. I hope that that gives the lie to the myth of the rich farmer. Many more farmers are likely to be in the same position. A recent Farmers Weekly survey showed average farm incomes of only £11,000.
In addition, expenditure on farm infrastructure has had to be dramatically reduced, which produces a knock-on effect on everybody. In 1980 the town of Horncastle boasted no fewer than 10 machinery dealers. By the end of this month the figure will be reduced to just two. Additional imposed overheads have been created due to
Column 663
Government legislation during the past 10 years, including cost, chemical and spray regulations, and the requirement to record the movement of cattle.I would not for one moment say that such measures were unnecessary. The problem for agriculture is that, unlike other industries, it cannot pass on the cost to the consumer. Equally, it is unable to pass on any other costs, such as bank charges and wage increases. Most industries can add value to output to meet rising costs. Agriculture can do so only by diversification. At best, that can be exploited only by those who are already sound and have the necessary resources, which many farmers simply do not have.
In 1989 a report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food showed that the average increase in profit for those who had entered the farm diversification scheme was only £500. The central problem for farmers in Lincolnshire during the past five years or so has been the stagnation in the price of the goods they produce. For example, a farmer received £122 a tonne for milling wheat five years ago, and the price has remained the same. Over the same period, the loaf of bread that the housewife buys, has risen from 39p to 50p. Five years ago, a pint of milk left the farm for 8.6p and the housewife bought it for 22p. Now that same pint leaves the farm for 9.8p and costs 30p in the shops.
On behalf of Lincolnshire farmers I warmly welcome MAFF's recent decision on farm prices, which should add £500 million to farmers' returns for a full year. I pay tribute to the fighting stance of our agriculture Ministers in those negotiations and say "Well done" on behalf of all Lincolnshire farmers.
I also welcome the Government's firm commitment to end disparties between green and market rates of exchange of the pound by the end of 1992. I would like them ended now, but I appreciate that in this, as in all matters, the Government have to convince our so-called partners, who are in fact competitors with many unfair advantages. It is about as easy as persuading a lightweight jockey to add a few pounds to his saddle. But how else can the race be fair?
The recently agreed green pound devaluation will increase cereal support in the United Kingdom by 10.7 per cent. at the start of the next marketing year. That is something for which Lincolnshire farmers and I have been arguing for some time and they, like me, are pleased that the Government have persuaded our European colleagues to take steps towards ending those undesirable discrepancies. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that the Government will do all they can to ensure that the Community sticks to its commitment to remove monetary compensatory amounts by 1992? I need that assurance today, as do the farmers whom I represent.
Nevertheless, the industry in my constituency still perceives disadvantages placed on it as against its European competitors. I shall give two examples of that. Corn sold into intervention in the United Kingdom has to beat 14.5 per cent. moisture, whereas corn sold into intervention by our EC counterparts has to be at 15 per cent. moisture. That increases drying costs. Quite rightly, in the United Kingdom there is stringent checking of chicken stocks for salmonella. By the beginning of the month new fewer than 1,200,000 birds had been slaughtered. Naturally, that increases costs, but there is no such testing in our EEC counterparts.
On the subject of disease, will my hon. Friend comment briefly on the agreement reached recently in Brussels on
| Next Section
| Home Page |