Previous Section Home Page

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (PROTECTION OF GREENFIELD SITES) BILL Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

BEACHES AND COASTLINE (REGULATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

SAFEGUARDS FOR RESIDENTS IN REGISTERED HOMES BILL Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

ADOPTION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

DOGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTS (RESTRICTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Hon. Members : Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch) : I feel lucky. Friday 13 July. Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.


Column 1307

HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS CLAUSES ACT 1847 (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

ABOLITION OF DEER HUNTING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

LICENSING OF TICKET SALES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

MOTOR TRADE (CONSUMER PROTECTION) BILL [LORDS] Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West) : With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 20 July.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

LONDON LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

POLL TAX (RESTORATION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY) BILL Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

RAPE IN MARRIAGE (OFFENCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.

TRADE UNION ACT 1984 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS] Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 July.

CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members : Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Objection taken. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : With the agreement of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday next, Sir. That was a disgraceful objection.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 July.


Column 1308

Mr. Amess : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My Bill--the Raoul Wallenberg (Memorial) Bill--was not moved. I am pleased to say that the Government have agreed to assist in securing a piece of land in a prominent part of London on which to place a fitting tribute to Raoul Wallenberg, and I shall therefore not be taking the Bill any further. Let me take this opportunity to thank all the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have helped to bring about this unique event.

Sir Bernard Braine : I was a member of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill. I was greatly disturbed--for reasons that I have already mentioned--by the way in which objection to the Bill was handled ; however, there has been a happy ending to the story. Let me simply say that the Bill was intended to secure a memorial to one of the great heroes of the 20th century, whom the United States made an honorary American citizen. Surely the least that we can do is mark his sacrifice, and his dedication and devotion in saving at least 100,000 lives through personal endeavour by ensuring that the piece of land so generously offered by the Government is sited prominently in our capital city.

Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a particularly observant occupant of the Chair, you will have noticed that, during the slaughter of the innocents that traditionally takes place on this day every July, many hon. Members objecting to ten-minute Bills--most of them Opposition Members--have stood to record their objections. Should not the names of such hon. Members be recorded? At least hon. Members who attempt to say publicly why they oppose certain Bills would then be able to do so.

The Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill has been presented seven times in the two most recent Parliaments, and has always been objected to, usually by a member of the Trappist tendency on the Conservative Benches. That has caused grave disquiet to many pensioners who would like to see some light at the end of the poverty tunnel.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to discuss the Bill. What is his point of order?

Mr. Corbyn : The point of order is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am here nearly every Friday at this time to discuss these issues. You must be aware of the disquiet in the House about the anonymity, of objectors : it is tantamount to a secret vote. In an elected Parliament, everything should be open and above board. If the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) wishes to oppose the abolition of deer hunting-- or the excellent Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to protect badger setts--let him stand up and say so.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. If I deal with the point of order from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I may short-circuit later points of order.

This matter was dealt with at length by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of our proceedings today. I have repeated what he said, and made one or two additional points in the light of points of order. There is nothing that I can add.

Mr. Simon Hughes : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and on a separate matter, relating to the business that has just gone through.


Column 1309

I realise that silent objections are not a matter for the Chair ; you and Mr. Speaker have made that clear. One of this week's issues, however, has been behaviour that discredits Parliament. People outside complain regularly about Bills that are killed rather than being allowed to be voted out. If their future is determined by a vote, people understand ; if it is determined by an unnamed objector, they do not, and they do not regard that as a democratic process. Will you clarify another point, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I understand from the Vote Office that many of the Bills in the long list that has just been read out have not been printed. If that is so, am I right in thinking that, in effect, hon. Members will have no opportunity to move the motion for Second Reading? Would it be possible in future for the Order Paper to show whether a Bill has been printed, and, if it has not, for it not to appear on the Order Paper? There was a long list of Bills that had been printed, but it was made longer by the Bills that had not been printed. The general view is that Bills that are serious attempts at legislation should be printed. They should be seen as serious legislation, whereas that status should not be accorded to Bills of hon. Members who, as it were, fly a kite but never draft or print the Bills.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : May I deal with this, because it is probably a separate point? The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) makes a valuable point, because sometimes the procedure is somewhat confusing. If there were no objection to a Bill that had not been printed, we would not allow its Second Reading to be moved. The hon. Gentleman may wish to put his other point to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman has a point. I have no hesitation in objecting, and being identified as somebody who had objected, to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill and the Abolition of Deer Hunting Bill. I do object--I made this point earlier today--to the promoter of the Bill abusing points of order by making a speech about an objection to which, without a further abuse of the points of order procedure, the hon. Member who has objected has no opportunity to reply. The actions and words of the promoter of a Bill can be misconstrued by people outside who have an interest in it. I hope very much, as a result of the many points of order raised this morning and the clarification given from the Chair by you, Sir, and Mr. Speaker, that the public outside will begin to appreciate that objections to Bills are often merely an attempt further to discuss measures such as the Protection of Badger Setts Bill, which I want to see on the statute book in an amended form.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes : Further to the points of order made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is right that people should be clear about the procedures of the House. The points that he made were valuable. People are confused not only by the procedure that we have just gone through but about some of the Bills that are brought before the House.


Column 1310

In a point of order, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) suggested that he did not know who had objected to his Elimination of Poverty in Retirement Bill. Anyone who did not know that I had volubly objected to it would have to be lacking in all sensory perception. The real abuse is that the Bill had no chance of succeeding. It would never have been in the programme of any party and the hon. Gentleman is misleading people, for his own political advantage, into believing that it had any chance of succeeding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : These are all valid points to put to the Select Committee on Procedure, if the hon. Gentleman so wishes. Mr. Corbyn rose --

Mr. Tony Banks rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Both hon. Members who are now standing have had a go. I will call them again, but I am extremely anxious to hear what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wishes to say in his Adjournment debate. I should like to get on to that pretty quickly.

Mr. Banks : Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was most disingenuous : he said that his only reason for objecting to the Protection of Badger Setts Bill was that he wanted further debate. He knows that there will be no further opportunity to debate it on the Floor of the House unless the Government allocate time for that. He was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and we had three full sittings, at which he made all the points that he wanted. If he had allowed the Bill to proceed today, it could have gone to the other place, where the further debate could have been held. The hon. Gentleman should not try to pull the wool over the House's eyes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We cannot debate these matters now.

Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West) : On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, spurious points of order were made about my Consumer Guarantees Bill. Mr. Speaker ruled that the procedure that I used to change the date from today to 20 July was perfectly in order, but will you confirm that?

I forced a voted on the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill, which resulted in it being dropped and moved to Monday. I believe that this is a genuine point of order. Will you confirm, Sir, that the Government can allow time for a debate on that day and could allow time for my Consumer Guarantees Bill to be considered in Government time? That would show that the Government are concerned about consumers, not about manufacturers who produce shoddy goods.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I should not want to deal with that point off the cuff. I am not exactly sure about that, and I should want to give the hon. Gentleman wholly accurate advice. I suggest that he seek advice afterwards from the Clerks, who I am sure will be able to tell him exactly what happens.

Mr. Corbyn rose--


Column 1311

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. Member wish to speak on the Adjournment?

Mr. Corbyn : No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to raise a point of order. I should like to put on record my gratitude to the hon. Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for bringing a little glasnost into the Chamber. They have at last said that they are opposed to the debating--not to the passage--of the two Bills with which I am associated.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes : That is untrue. Do not tell lies in the House.

Mr. Corbyn : I heard the hon. Member for Harrow, West say something that I believe to be fully out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The comments by the hon. Members for Harrow, West and for Romsey and Waterside re- emphasise the point that the House needs to debate procedure once again. If a Member who has the support of thousands, if not millions, of people wishes to bring to the attention of the nation the problem of the impoverishment of elderly people, that does not mean that the relevant legislation will be carried by the House. I am pretty sure that Conservative Members would vote against it. I am sure that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is the function of the House to debate measures brought forward by individual Members through the proper procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We cannot debate these matters now. I have let the House have a good run.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES

Ordered,

That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Orkney Line Ltd, and Shetland Line (1984) Ltd. and to the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and of Shetland Line (1984) Ltd. as if they were draft statutory instruments ; and that the said draft Undertakings be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Wood.]


Column 1312

Islington Health Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Wood.]

2.56 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : I should like to refer to the problems of Islington health authority, which obviously covers my constituency as well as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and part of the borough of Haringey, which is covered by the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency.

I am sponsored as a Member by the National Union of Public Employees. I receive no personal income from that organisation, but I have a considerable interest in the health service through that sponsorship and because I represent an inner-city area. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury cannot be here, because he is away in Brussels on Front-Bench duties. He wishes to be associated with the general thrust of my remarks because he is worried about these matters.

The Islington health authority covers a predominantly impoverished inner- city area. In many senses, the health problems in the area are related either to the poverty of elderly people--there is an aging population--or to housing and social stress, such as alcoholism and various forms of psychiatric illness which largely emanate from social conditions.

It is to the credit of many people and organisations in Islington--the health authority, the council, the com-munity health council, Islington Health Watch and many more--that Healthy Islington 2000 has been launched. It is trying to put into practice what the World Health Organisation has been preaching for a long time. I refer to a paper which was included in the report by Dr. Leila Lessof, the borough's public health officer. Monika Schwartz produced a paper on behalf of Healthy Islington 2000, in which she said :

"We can recognise that not only do we need to promote healthier life- styles, we also need to create a healthier environment for people who work and live in Islington."

The main points were as follows : to develop relevant health targets and indicators ; to address directly inequalities in health, taking account of the health needs of the black and ethnic communities who live in Islington ; to co-ordinate health promotion activities between the borough, the district health authority and other agencies ; and to encourage an interdisciplinary approach to improving health and collaborative projects.

The Government's funding policies in respect of the needs of Islington health authority do not make many of those achievements possible.

The borough has been poll tax-capped, as have neighbouring boroughs, so there are problems involved in trying to implement the community care policies that have been put forward. There are also problems associated with the lack of ring fencing of community care expenditure, an issue which was extensively debated in the House recently. In addition, there is a great thirst for a better health service in Islington. The social history of the borough reveals--for example, the establishment of the Manor Gardens centre in 1912--the desire of working-class people living in the poor area of Upper Holloway to achieve a degree of communally provided and funded community health care.


Column 1313

There are several health funding issues affecting Islington that I particularly draw to the attention of the House. One is the closure of Friern hospital, a large Victorian institution in the borough of Barnet which is jointly funded by Islington and several other areas. It is due for closure in 1993 and has been the subject of much controversy, particularly since there is no ring fencing of the community care provision of money that will be passed to borough councils.

I do not doubt the intentions of the London borough of Islington to carry out a decent community care policy. It is simply that the pressures on the borough's budget are intolerable. In addition, the borough has been poll tax-capped, as has the neighbouring borough of Haringey. An example of the difficulties facing mentally ill patients came in this story in The Haringey Independent of 28 June : "Forty-nine-year-old Miss Patricia Burbidge of Wood Green was taken to North Middlesex Hospital where she died of multiple injuries." She was a mentally ill woman who was killed when she was in collision with a train at Bounds Green station.

"Police are not treating Miss Burbidge's death as suspicious and an inquest will be held later this month. They believe Miss Burbidge was an in-patient at Friern Barnet, a mental hospital being run down as part of the Government's care in the community programme. The Voluntary Co-ordinator of the Enfield and Haringey Branch of the Schizophrenia Fellowship, Pamela Maher, criticised the pace of the rundown of long stay psychiatric hospitals in the wake of the tragedy. She said : With the rundown of Friern Barnet Hospital, it's increasingly difficult for staff to cope.' "

That emphasises many of the problems affecting the morale of the staff and the safety of patients, due to the rundown and accompanying loss of staff.

That newspaper carried a further story about the closure of Friern hospital and reported that Dr. Doris Hollander, consultative community psychiatrist at Friern hospital, was deeply worried about the shift of patients from the hospital. They would end up homeless, in prison or committing suicide, she said.

It is important for us to air loudly problems such as that. There are 590 patients at Friern, 200 of whom come from Islington. I am sorry to say that patients from many mental health institutions do not get adequate community care. Instead, they slip through the net, and a tour of people in London who nightly have to sleep near the central heating grilles of offices, alongside the Savoy hotel or in parks in north London reveals the tragic situation of many former in-patients of long-stay institutions. I am in favour of community care, but if it is not properly funded, we shall continue to have the disastrous situation that now exists.

With the possible advance of the closure of Friern hospital, a degree of panic is setting in. Insufficient alternative accommodation will be available if the closure is brought forward two years, the latest proposal to come from the regional health authority. May we be assured that such a speedy closure of Friern will not go ahead without the provision of adequate, full-time, permanent accommodation for those who will be discharged when the hospital finally closes? My second substantive point is the problem of the funding of Islington health authority. The annual report of Islington community health council stated :

"In October last year the health authority agreed cuts in services of 65 beds, and 16 per cent. reductions in operating theatre out-patient sessions."


Next Section

  Home Page