| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, outlining the horrors of what is happening in Sri Lanka. Does he agree that, by
Column 345
providing arms and military advisers, and indeed by allowing private security companies to operate in Sri Lanka, the British Government have exacerbated the situation, rather than brought us nearer to peace? Does he think that, at the very least, the Government should establish a total embargo on arms trade with Sri Lanka?Mr. Cohen : I agree with my hon. Friend. The sale of arms in such circumstances is nothing short of a scandal.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take up the issues that I have raised with the Government, so that they will take action to try to end the dreadful killings in a country which used to be known as a paradise.
7.24 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : Before we adjourn for the Christmas recess, I ask the House to redress an injustice to community charge payers in the borough of Gravesham. This injustice is contained in the revenue support grant settlement for 1991-92, and has continued for many years--I refer to the allocation of districts to different designations for London and fringe allowances. The revenue support grant is adjusted accordingly.
These allowances have existed for many years. Originally, they were based upon the Metropolitan police district, before the establishment of Greater London in 1965. In 1971, a distinction was made between inner and outer London, and in 1974 a network of neighbouring districts were grouped into inner and outer fringe areas. There have been no changes to those designations since 1974--they have been well and truly set in cement. The definitions are inaccurate and fundamentally unfair simply because of geography.
Gravesend is about 22 miles from Charing Cross, as the crow flies. It is the administrative centre of the borough of Gravesham, which is ruled outside of any allowance area. To clarify the injustice I could show hon. Members the pretty multi-coloured map that I have here but, as that cannot be put in Hansard, I shall try to illustrate the situation with words.
Let us circumnavigate the metropolis in an anti-clockwise direction, 22 miles out from Charing Cross. Across the Thames northwards lies Thurrock, which is an outer fringe borough. To the east lies Basildon, which is some 30 miles out, and is also an outer fringe borough. They are both funded accordingly. Further round lies Brentwood, which is an outer fringe borough, Epping Forest, which is an inner fringe borough, and Harlow, which is outer fringe. We then come to the southern reaches of east Hertfordshire, an area which stretches northwards 50 miles from Charing Cross, and is classified as an outer fringe district.
Further round, we find Welwyn-Hatfield, St. Albans, Dacorum and Chiltern, which are all outer fringe districts. Next is south Buckinghamshire, which is not exactly poverty-stricken--it is considered an inner fringe area. Then we go through Surrey. The whole of that county receives fringe allowance funding, and four of its districts are funded as inner fringe areas. Even Waverley, on the borders of Hampshire, which is more than 30 miles from Charing Cross, is considered to be a fringe district. Crawley, in west Sussex, is 30 miles out and is a fringe borough.
Column 346
In my county of Kent, Sevenoaks and Dartford are cosily within the fringe--Dartford is classified within the inner fringe. Gravesham, uniquely, is left out.What effect does that have? Gravesham borough council is a well-run borough. It gives a high standard of service within a tightly controlled budget. Its effectiveness can be judged by the community charge set this year, which was £293 and compares very well with the English average of £357.
Nevertheless, Gravesham council achieves that within one of the most expensive parts of the country for housing and general living costs. The cost of housing in Gravesham is little different from that in the Kentish borough of Dartford, which is funded as an inner fringe district, and the London borough of Bexley, which receives the even better outer London allowance.
To ensure that the quality of staff is maintained, that vacancies can be competitively filled and that current staff are fairly treated, Gravesham borough council has unilaterally resolved to pay its staff the allowance. The cost has been added to community charge payers' bill.
Were Gravesham an outer fringe borough--as would seem right and proper judging by geography alone--our grant would be £300,000 higher. If we were classified as an inner fringe district, as is our neighbour Dartford, we would be £600,000 better off, which translates to £4 or £8 respectively off the community charge bills in Gravesham.
In the meantime, we are saddled with the cost, and local employees of the county council are saddled with the additional injustice of not receiving a territorial allowance in their pay. It is worth noting that teachers and other county council employees in the north-west Kent division who work in Dartford borough--at Swanscombe or Southfleet--get an inner fringe pay allowance, but those who work in education or other county services in the eastern part of the same division, at Gravesend or Northfleet, receive no allowance whatsoever.
The territorial divisions around London which I mentioned a few moments ago were introduced by the Labour Government in 1974. The present Conservative Government have corrected or rejected so much of their complicated inheritance from Labour : I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ensure that yet another step is taken to rid my constituents of this remaining injustice.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. The Front-Bench spokesmen hope to catch my eye at 7.45 pm. Three hon. Members are still rising in the hope of speaking in the current debate. I hope that they will divide the available time between them, which allows them five minutes apiece.
7.29 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : In fact, four hon. Members are hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall therefore be brief.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) amazes me. He has suddenly discovered that the current local government grant system is based on stupid formulae, that the standard spending assessments are idiotic and biased against a host of authorities, and that the revenue support grant-- which we were told at one time would provide 50 per cent. of local government expenditure--does nothing
Column 347
of the sort : it varies from 3 per cent. in one district to 98 per cent. in another, and my own authority receives only 11 per cent. Those figures were provided in the answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, but the details were placed in the Library, so they would not be as readily available to hon. Members as they would have been if they had been published in Hansard.Let me turn to the subject of my own speech. Two of my constituents, Ruth and Bev Smith, have adopted a mentally handicapped child from Romania. They are the only couple to have adopted a mentally handicapped child, which must hold some lessons for us. Why have not more mentally handicapped Romanian children been adopted in this country, given the amount of publicity?
The couple's position is exceptional. They already have experience of dealing with mentally handicapped children : they have a mentally handicapped child of their own, and have adopted two others. Because of that, the social services were able to deliver a first-class report. They have also been able to take advantage of a first-class special school, which is run by Derbyshire county council at Inkersall Green--and will continue to be run in the same way if the available resources are not utterly destroyed by the present Government.
The couple have been incredibly determined. They first found out about the problems in Romania in February. Bev Smith visited Romania four times, and eventually contacted me about the problems that he was experiencing with the Home Office and the Foreign Office. Those problems were then resolved, and, once the two Departments understood the nature of the problems, they provided assistance. The couple also obtained the assistance of Mencap in Chesterfield : that assistance was vastly important, because it enabled Emese--the adopted child--not to be deemed a burden on the taxpayer. The Smiths' finances were limited, and the backing of Chesterfield Mencap was therefore essential.
Given the huge amount of publicity and public concern, why is Emese the only mentally handicapped Romanian child who will spend Christmas in this country? Perhaps we should question the extent to which mentally handicapped children can be found in Romanian institutions. Emese is only five, and has made considerable progress since her arrival with the Smiths. In a letter to me, Bev Smith writes : "I must confess when I was at the Castle at Brincovevenesti it was the hardest decision that I have ever had to make. The fact that Emese grabbed me was the best thing that could have happened for her".
Masses of other children there needed help, but it was Emese who wanted to join that fine family.
The Government should consider the current arrangements in detail. 7.34 pm
Mr. Douglas French (Gloucester) : I doubt that any Christmas Adjournment debate would be complete without a speech about road safety. In the short time available, I want to talk about the dangers posed by motorists who drive while simultaneously holding telephones--especially those who charge along the motorway with one hand on the steering wheel and the other holding a car phone, and those who try to guide their cars around roundabouts steering with their knees or elbows because they are using one had to key in a number and the other hand to hold the dialling mechanism.
Column 348
I have raised this matter a number of times. Sometimes I have been referred to the highway code, which states :"Do not use a hand held microphone or telephone handset while your vehicle is moving except in an emergency".
It is obvious to me from what I see every day that that sound advice is being flagrantly ignored--and it is only advice ; it has no statutory backing.
When I have mentioned the problem to the Department of Transport, I have been told that it can be dealt with adequately by existing legislation, namely section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which covers driving without due care and attention and driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. I have also been referred to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, which make it an offence not to be in proper control of a vehicle. It is true that the existing legislation provides a statutory basis for prosecutions, but that is possible only when the danger has already been caused. It tackles the problem of those who drive carelessly, but does not address itself to the reasons for that careless driving. We need measures that will prevent, or curb, the dangerous practice that may cause accidents, before those accidents happen.
All car telephones should be equipped with remote loudspeakers and microphones, so that drivers can hear and be heard without having to hold receivers to their ears. Secondly, all care telephones should have pre- programmed short-call dialling facilities or voice-activated dialling, so that drivers can make calls without having to hold the dialling mechanism in their hands or take their eyes of the road. These are very modest requirements : many car telephones already in use are already so equipped, and I think that they all should be. It is evident from the response to my representations that the Department of Transport is not persuaded by my arguments ; I predict, however, that in time it will change its mind. In the 1990s, up to 5 million car telephones are likely to be in use ; if we include portable personal phones which can be used in cars, the figures will be far higher before the decade is out. That means that, for part of almost every journey, the vehicle involved will be driven with only one hand.
Another menace that looms on the horizon is the use of portable photocopiers and fax machines in motor cars. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) seems astonished, but I can inform her that the machines are positioned on the front passenger seat, and plugged into the cigarette lighter. It may be a convenient facility for a salesman or indeed a politician in a hurry, but there is also too great a temptation to operate the photocopier or fax machine while driving.
Before long, we may have television sets in motor cars. At the moment, they are confined to the back seats of luxury motor cars, but the time may come when they take their place alongside radios on the fascia boards of family motor cars. That will pose a massive threat to road safety. The Secretary of State for Transport ought to take that threat extremely seriously. I urge the Leader of the House to pass to the Secretary of State the message that road safety figures will suffer dramatically unless something is done to stamp out this menace.
Column 349
7.39 pmMr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : It would be wrong for the House to adjourn without returning once again to the issue that faces us all. When we return here on 14 January, a war could have begun. There could be shooting in the Gulf, with nuclear weapons on one side and chemical weapons on the other. There is no defence against either form of weapons. If chemical weapons are used, dust clouds will blow a long distance and many will die as a result. If the other side decides that it has been forced into using nuclear weapons, what happened at Chernobyl will be minor compared with the consequences of their use in the Gulf. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has pointed out on many occasions, and as he will do so later tonight, the consequences of fighter planes from Saudi Arabia flying into Kuwait and Iraq to bomb their oilfields will be catastrophic and truly horrific.
No hon. Member is an apologist for Iraq. I am not. On many occasions, I have questioned Iraq's treatment of the Kurdish people, its use of chemical weapons at Al Malkiya in 1988, its oppression of Kurdish rights throughout northern Iraq, the imprisonment of trade unionists and the assassination of those who, over the years, have stood up for human rights in Iraq. In no sense am I an apologist for Iraq, nor do I support anything that the Iraqi regime does. After Kuwait was invaded on 2 August, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who was then Prime Minister, rushed across to the United States and cobbled together an arrangement with President Bush that enabled a multinational peacekeeping force, as they called it, to go into Saudi Arabia to protect the rights of smaller nations and ensure the survival of democracy. When that happened, I thought back to what happened only a year before, when 7, 000 people were bombed to death in Panama by American troops. I remembered also the decision of the International Court of Human Rights at The Hague, which found unaminously and specifically against the United States because of its aggression against Nicaragua. I thought also about the people I had met in Central America who were maimed as a result of United States arms being poured into the region to kill people. I thought also about the United Nations resolutions that had been carried on Namibia, Palestine, Cyprus and many other issues that could not be implemented because of power of veto of the United States, or of any other member of the Security Council. In the post-cold-war world in which we now live, is the fate of the world to be decided by the dollar power of the United States and by the industrial nations getting together to teach the rest of the world a lesson, or are we serious about searching for lasting solutions to apparently intractable conflicts? I believe strongly in the cause of peace. I believe that peace is possible in the middle east. We live in a world that is bitterly divided between north and south, between rich and poor nations, between the rich and poor within rich nations and between the rich and poor within poor nations. We live in a world where, increasingly, the poor are subsiding the rich. I do not like that. I want a world order that brings about peace.
Those who say that the only solution to the middle east and Gulf conflicts is to let slip the dogs of war on 15 January may be pleased to see United States, British, French and other troops go in and succeed in moving the
Column 350
borders and regaining Kuwait, even though 500,000 people may die in the process. Land will be laid waste for decades, if not permanently. However, when the fighing has stopped, the Palestinian and Kurdish problems will still be there, the lack of democracy in Kuwait, the lack of human rights in Iraq and the lack of democracy and respect for human rights in Saudi Arabia will still be there and the oppression of peoples throughout the region will still be there. The only way to achieve a genuine and lasting peace is to put on one side the colonial mentality and to start talking about the rights and self-respect of the peoples in that region.I hope that there is no war on 15 January, or at any time. Instead of relaxing and doing nothing until we return here on 15 January, I hope that all those who are responsible for getting the troops to the area and building up war fever will, if necessary, go to Iraq, or anywhere else, so that talks can take place with the object of achieving peace in the region instead of the horrors of a chemical-nuclear war, with all its accompanying death and destruction. There is time, but not much.
7.47 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : It is almost impossible to respond to a debate that has been as wide-ranging as this. Hon. Members will understand if I am unable to reply to all the speeches. Some hon. Members who have left the Chamber said that they would have to do so.
The first speech was made by my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). It has become a tradition that he should open Adjournment motion debates and I should make the penultimate speech. He referred to the depths of the recession. His speech will be worth reading tomorrow in Hansard . Some hon. Members referred to constituency issues ; others dealt with foreign affairs ; and others concentrated on social issues which at this time of the year are perhaps the most relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made a powerful constituency speech. He said that Newport ought to be awarded city status. His speech will also be worth reading. I hope, as he does, that the Home Secretary will read it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) dealt with foreign affairs. My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Winnick) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made powerful speeches about international issues. I was especially moved by the description of conditions in Sri Lanka. If we are unable to spare a thought for such issues at this time of the year, when shall we?
Most hon. Members' speeches concentrated on social issues. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) referred to hospitals ; the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to the elderly ; the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the homeless. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) made a powerful contribution on behalf of the disabled. In his wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also referred to the homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) concentrated on the rules governing adoption and its associated problems,
Column 351
especially those encountered if one wants to adopt mentally handicapped children. They are all relevant social issues. I intend to deal with three completely different Christmas-new year issues, and I shall do so in ascending order of importance. We have had a momentous couple of months in politics, and we now have a new Prime Minister. Getting rid of the old Prime Minister was the culmination of the Labour party's objectives of the past 11 years. I am delighted to be able to speak on behalf of a clear majority in the House, because 226 Labour Members, the 168 Tories who did not support her and the various other parties are all glad to see the back of her.The one memorable statement of the new Prime Minister was his commitment to a classless society. That commitment will be tested over the Christmas recess. There is already a bad omen, because one of the characteristics of the Christmas recess is the publication of the new year's honours list. In his commitment to a classless society, he made the bizarre decision of recommending the creation of a hereditary baronetcy
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recollect the ruling that Mr. Speaker gave yesterday : generalities, yes, but it is not in order to discuss individual cases.
Mr. Grocott : The ruling gets more puzzling all the time. I thought that it was on questioning the Prime Minister specifically about that matter.
I was present at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. I hope that we do not return to the nonsense of hereditary titles, which would be ridiculous in the 20th century, let alone when a commitment has been made to a classless society. I hope that we bring the procedures of the House up to date so that we can question how titles are created, and I further hope that that matter is referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.
Mr. Grocott : I am glad that my hon. Friend is on it.
It is ridiculous that we are unable to question this important part of prime ministerial patronage. That is not a criticism of the monarch, who simply does what is recommended. It is high time that the honours system was subject to more careful scrutiny, particularly as it was abused for political purposes by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
I said that I would deal with issues in ascending order of importance. Baronetcies are not matters of major importance, but the other two subjects that I wish to raise are. We shall undoubtedly encounter bad weather during the Christmas recess. As bad weather dramatically affected the west midlands the weekend before last, I wish to refer to how the public services had to respond. Thousands of people, including many of my constituents, were without heat, power and water. My constituents in Dawley were without water for five days.
As ever, the people who find themselves at the sharp end when things go wrong are those who must go up poles and repair the wires in biting winds. They are employed by the great national utilities, but they did not make the investment decisions that caused the problems in the first place. It is salutary to note how, under this Government, our great national utilities have suffered from a lack of investment.
Column 352
It is even more disgraceful that they have been sold off at knock down prices. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not like this ; I would be upset if I were them. In the past week, the electricity industry was sold off at a cut price. According to a parliamentary answer, the Government received £5,182 million from the regional electricity companies, whereas the current value is £6,221 million. That is nothing compared to some of the huge privatisation bonuses under the Government. The National Freight Consortium was sold in 1982 at a benefit to the Exchequer of £5 million, whereas it is now worth £702 million. Associated British Ports was sold for £45 million, whereas it is now valued at £377 million. The Exchequer has received massive income from privatisation, but my constituents can see no benefit.Since the Government took office, revenue from privatisation amounts to £28.5 billion. Therefore, would not one expect massive improvements in our national corporations? My word, there has been no improvement ; but nor has there been any benefit from the revenue of North sea oil.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose --
Mr. Grocott : I shall not give way ; I have only three minutes left.
I tabled a simple question to the Chancellor on 14 December asking him to compare North sea oil revenue under this Government with that under the previous Labour Government. The previous Labour Government received £944 million from North sea oil, but this Government have had £70,200 million. Conservative Members wonder why their Government have survived. They have survived on a raft of North sea oil. In the three minutes left to me, I wish to mention homelessness ; I can see that Conservative Members are upset about that. Perhaps they will turn their attention to it and feel a little shame about what the Government have done for homeless people. We read in the press this morning of the Government's minor attempts to deal with homelessness in London. Ironically, on the same day, the Government announced the housing investment programme for my local authority, the Wrekin, for this year. Last year, we were allowed to borrow £3.3 million, but this year it has been reduced to £3 million. In cash terms, that is reduction of 10 per cent., but in real terms a reduction of 18 per cent.
It is hypocritical for the Government to pretend that they are doing something about homelessness when all the time they are reducing the number of houses being built. It is baffling that the Government, who pride themselves on being able to do simple arithmetic, hold up their hands in horror about the number of people without homes and the number on housing waiting lists, because they know that 500,000 fewer houses were built in the 1980s than in any decade since the war. No wonder the number of homeless people has increased, and no wonder there have been dramatic increases in local authority housing waiting lists.
Let me leave Conservative Members--sometimes they need things to be put in straightforward language--with a simple truth. If the demand for homes is increasing but the Government are reducing the supply, homelessness will result. If there is anything wrong with that logic, I should be delighted if a Conservative Member were to correct it at a later date.
Column 353
There is something particularly ironic in dealing with homelessness at Christmas. It was perhaps understandable that in Palestine in the first century there were problems of homelessness, but it is disgraceful that in the United Kingdom in the 20th century such problems remain. I look forward to a Labour Government solving homelessness, and let us hope that this is the last Christmas recess under the Tories.7.58 pm
The Leader of the House and Lord President of the Council (Mr. John MacGregor) : It was appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) should open the debate because, as a distinguished predecessor of mine, he was much involved in closing such debates in the past. Having read his responses to those debates I must admit that I shall not replicate his delightful manner and turn of phrase, not least because of the limited amount of time available.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the economy, which was also appropriate as we are both former Chief Secretaries. He will be aware that there are two views about membership of the ERM and the rate at which we entered. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) made an appropriate point about some of the benefits of ERM to British industry and commerce and I share his view.
My right hon. Friend's views are well known as he has a longstanding commitment to free floating exchange rates, but that is not the view of Her Majesty's Government nor of most hon. Members. The majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House approved of our entry. Although it was not quite clear in my right hon. Friend's remarks, he will recognise that those of us in favour of membership never regarded it as a panacea or as a painless solution to the need for a strong policy stance against inflation. The ERM is an anti-inflationary club and we are determined to abide by the rules. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in last week's debate, we have no intention of putting our position in the ERM at risk. The Chancellor's remarks in the debate were carefully considered and, since they were briefly quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, it is right to requote in full the particular passage. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said :
"There can be no question of a reduction in interest rates that is not fully justified by our position in the ERM. That will be the case however strong is the pressure for lower interest rates based on other indicators. The discipline of the ERM is tough, but, because it increases the certainty of lower inflation, it also means that when interest rate reductions do take place, they are securely based."--[ Official Report, 12 December 1990 ; Vol. 182, c. 966.]
My right hon. Friend's last point is of particular importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North also referred to a comment from the governor of the Bundesbank. We take domestic economic conditions into account when considering economic decisions, as do all other countries in the ERM. The governor of the Bundesbank was not saying anything new or different in that context. The ERM provides an over-arching, additional discipline to reinforce anti-inflationary policy. That is one reason why we joined and why we shall stick
Column 354
with it. My right hon. Friend suggested that the exchange rate is too high. It is most important to maintain the necessary monetary and fiscal conditions until we can get the inflationary elements out of the economy.The real danger still ahead of us is that high wage and salary increases run the risk of eroding the gains in productivity and unit costs achieved in the past decade. Those increases will undermine our competitiveness because of high labour costs and will keep our inflation rate at too high a level. As our first priority it is right to aim for a sustained fall in the rate of inflation.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to a number of matters relating to the disabled. All those matters have been frequently referred to in the House in the past and I shall deal with them briefly, not least because the right hon. Gentleman also informed me that he had to leave before the conclusion of the debate. On the independent living fund, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the trust deed runs out some months after the introduction of community care arrangements in 1993. The Government would therefore expect that people seeking help after the implementation of those arrangements should be able to look to the local authorities. We shall consult the local authorities on the timetable for any transfer of existing cases and associated resources.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to service men and the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. That matter was carefully considered by the House at the time of the repeal of section 10 of the 1947 Act. It was concluded that it was not possible to define a scheme that allowed retrospection without creating further injustices or anomalies. I strongly believe that we should not pass retrospective legislation. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware of our position on nuclear test veterans as he and I have had exchanges on that before. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) requested a change in his county's structure plan. I have been sufficiently involved with all the details of redrawing my structure plan, including questions about mineral extraction, to know that it would be unwise of me to comment on my hon. Friend's structure plan given that I am not Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend's comments had a familiar ring and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will read them. However, I note that my hon. Friend has already been active in making representations on the various issues that he raised. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised the question of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. If I am allowed to get away for the recess--I share the view of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) that we shall not spend our entire time on holiday and that we shall do a good deal of work as well--I shall spend part of it considering the history and the arguments that the hon. Gentleman made. He will be aware that the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure on the workings of the Select Committee System concluded in recommendation 51 : "We therefore accept that this would not be a sensible moment to recommend the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs."
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) speaks with great knowledge about the racing and bloodstock industry because of his
Column 355
constituency and the great interest he takes in it. I agree with him that it is an important industry because of its contribution to the economy, the jobs that it provides and the pleasure it gives. My hon. Friend's point about VAT and the industry is obviously one for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury and I shall ensure that it is drawn to their attention, as it has been before. My hon. Friend also spoke about the horse as an agricultural animal. I recall the representations that I received about that when I was Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, not least from my constituents in Norfolk- -my hon. Friend referred to a number of hon. Members who represent Norfolk. I considered the case with some care, but one of the problems is that the horse is not always an agricultural animal.The hon. Member for Newport, East referred to the number of years he has been here, but the tribute he paid to his constituency was so long that I thought that he was making a maiden speech rather than one after 25 years in the House. Perhaps he was rehearsing his reselection speech in time for the next election. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the grant of city status is an honour conferred by the sovereign by letters patent. It is not a right that can be obtained by a town fulfilling certain conditions, irrespective of the points made in favour of Newport. That honour is awarded rarely and, since the war, only three towns have been granted city status--Derby, Southampton and Swansea. Any application must be considered against the background that I have outlined and I can give no suggestions as to the outcome of an application.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) gave me a let-out for not referring to funding for the National Health Service and related matters because of the debate about it that will be held shortly--I was not anxious to have such a let-out. Time prevents me from discussing the matters in detail, but all the issues raised in relation to the National Health Service, social security, cold weather payments and the position of the disabled have been met by the substantial increases in funding--between 50 per cent. and a doubling in funding in real terms--during the Government's term of office. We have increased that funding because we regard those areas as high priorities for public expenditure and because of the successful growth of the economy. Unfortunately, I cannot elaborate on that because of the time left.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the Select Committee on Health and referred to the insular and self-centred approach of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and in so doing he quoted Robbie Burns. That reminded me of another of his quotes :
"O wad some power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as others see us!"
I share my hon. Friend's attitude to the Liberal Democrats' behaviour. The Government deplore any attempt to prevent the formation of Committees on grounds unrelated to their merits. If it continues to prove impossible to set up Committees and the Chairman of the Committee of Selection seeks time for a debate on the particular Select Committee to which my hon. Friend referred, I shall be happy to provide it at the earliest opportunity. It will be for the Chairman of the Committee to take the initiating step, but I should certainly look for an opportunity to debate the matter at the earliest moment.
Column 356
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the homeless, and we all understand the many arguments he made. He will also recognise that a great deal of action and much expenditure has been undertaken by the Government. In view of the time I cannot say much in response except to highlight the statement that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning made yesterday which will extend the special and substantial programme by providing hostel and move- on accommodation worth £96 million. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised a particular constituency case that I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I should like to outline in more detail what is being done for pensioners, but time prevents me. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I am glad that he raised the Amnesty International report, because it draws our attention to a number of issues. It is another reason why the invasion of Kuwait is totally unacceptable and why, therefore, the United Nations resolution must be adhered to. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) raised a number of issues about sea defences with which, as he knows, I am familiar. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I attached great priority to increasing the Government's contribution to sea defences. My hon. Friend recognised that increased contribution. I opened one major new sea defence during that period on the north Norfolk coast. The environmental argument, to which my hon. Friend referred, was accepted by the Government for the first time in the case of Aldeburgh when I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I was happy to carry it through. My right hon. Friend the present Minister has continued to support that priority.My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) raised a constituency point about the revenue support grant, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) made several points about road safety. He will have several other opportunities to draw the attention of the House to those points. He will be aware of the strong focus on road safety matters in the legislative programme for this Parliament. As he will have other opportunities, I hope that he will agree that the House can now adjourn for the Christmas recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday 20th December do adjourn until Monday 14th January.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Column 357
Hospital Funding
8.10 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : There is no better time for us to consider some of the exciting events which are now taking place than at Christmas because one of the joys of Christmas is the many myths which are perpetuated at this time. We have our pantos and our theatres. We tell more fairy stories and have more excitement every day. We can almost inevitably expect a little panto from Her Majesty's Government. It usually has about as much relation to reality as Jack and the Beanstalk. They usually tell us how extremely lucky we are to have a national health service funded to a greater and greater degree by a benificent, kind, committed and caring Government. [Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] I am glad that the chorus is suitably rehearsed, if not very numerous or genuine. Yesterday we had a couple of examples of the Government's pantomime. The Minister of State, Department of Health--I hope that I am not promoting or demoting him--
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : The hon. Lady is promoting me
| Next Section
| Home Page |