| Home Page |
Column 941
Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It concerns hon. Members' access to Downing street. Twenty of my hon. Friends and I had arranged to present a letter voicing our concern and that of other hon. Members about the 20 million people threatened with starvation in Africa and the Government's wholly inadequate response to that. We had arranged to be there at 10.30 this morning--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Lady relate her point of order to my responsibilities? I have no jurisdiction over what goes on in Downing street.
Mrs. Clwyd : I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have made a previous ruling on this matter. We were told by the police in Downing street that only six hon. Members would be allowed through the gates. When we asked why, we were told that that was the rule and that it had always been so. We know that that is not true.
We were treated with considerable discourtesy and abuse by the police. We asked the policeman in charge to consult his superior ; he returned 10 to 15 minutes later, and all 21 of us were allowed through the gates with no inspection of our passes.
I make this point not to ask for any privilege for hon. Members but to seek to uphold the democratic rights of elected Members to have access to the Prime Minister in No. 10.
Mr. Speaker : I have no recollection of ever having made a ruling on Downing street, which is well outside the precincts of the Palace--
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Let me finish.
All I can tell the hon. Lady is that I am sure that what she has said will have been heard by the Ministers now on the Front Bench.
Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns access to this place, which is your responsibility as Chairman of the House of Commons Commission.
Yesterday there was a lobby of firemen worried about cuts in the fire service, and one of my constituents, Jack Womersley, had been sent a letter by me arranging to meet him in Central Lobby, as is the custom. He was not allowed access to Central Lobby ; when he was allowed in, at 2.30 pm, he was ushered down into Westminster Hall and not permitted access to Central Lobby even after a meeting in the Grand Committee Room. That meant that he had to pass a green card, transferred to him by someone else, to another person to put in for me.
It is the usual custom and practice for Members who want to show that they are meeting a constituent in Central Lobby, when this place is open, to send him a letter stating that a meeting will take place, and that is what I did. But my constituent was refused admission both before 2.30 pm and after 3 pm, and he was not allowed to come and see me. This needs looking into. I know that arrangements are made when there is a lobby, but my constituent particularly requested permission to see me and was refused, and that is disgraceful.
Column 942
Mr. Speaker : I shall ask for a report about the case. I understand that there were several thousand people in the Lobby yesterday. A great deal of trouble has been caused in the past by people on lobbies coming with letters from their Members of Parliament and by that means gazumping the queue. I imagine that may be the reason why this incident took place. However, I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members, myself included, have an office on the outskirts of the Palace, in my case in St. Stephen's Porch. Therefore, we have occasion several times during the day to come through St. Stephen's and the Central Lobby to reach the Chamber and Committee Rooms. For us, trying to get through mass lobbies is often a difficult job, but the police officers on duty are extraordinarily helpful and respectful to constituents visiting this place. Those who observe them carrying out their duties know that some of the accusations made today are far from the normal practice. We should be grateful for their vigilance.
Mr. Speaker : The House accepts that the police do a remarkable job, particularly in dealing with what I understand was a lobby of 10, 000.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : I call Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, although he is taking time from an Opposition supply day.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a simple point of order. I understand that the BBC, as part of a general move towards censorship, has banned any song that includes the word "peace" in the title or lyrics. Some 67 songs have been banned and--
Mr. Speaker : Order. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination could I be held responsible for that. I would not relish songs in the Chamber, either.
Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I was in the same position yesterday during the firemen's lobby. When you review this matter, may I suggest that you think about the convenience of hon. Members? I write to constituents and arrange to meet them at a specific time in a specific place, for my convienence. Yesterday, I was seriously inconvenienced by the fact that my constituent was trying to gain entrance with my letter but was refused. Will you consider that, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker : I shall consider that, but I recollect that, when I was in a rather different position, with the late friend of many hon. Members, Mr. Walter Harrison, we had trouble with large lobbies.
Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton) : Late? I saw him yesterday.
Mr. Speaker : I beg his pardon. I hope that Walter Harrison is very much with us.
I shall look into the matter, but it is not as easy as hon. Members sometimes make out.
Column 943
BILL PRESENTED
Protection of Badgers
Sir Nicholas Bonsor, supported by Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Nicholas Soames and Mr. Barry Field, presented a Bill to amend the Badgers Act 1973 to extend protection to badger setts against acts likely to cause bodily harm to badgers, to restrict further the entry of dogs into badger setts, to increase the penalties for offences under the Act, and to amend further the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to allow courts to disqualify those convicted of certain offences under the Badgers Act 1973 from keeping a dog : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.). That the draft Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.
Column 944
Nurse Prescribing
3.38 pm
Mr. Dudley Fishburn (Kensington) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Medicines Act 1968, the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in respect of pharmaceutical services ; to make provision for registered nurses to prescribe medicinal products in certain circumstances ; and for connected purposes. The purpose of my Bill is straightforward. It is to give nurses the authority to write prescriptions for a limited number of medicines. Although hundreds of thousands of patients receive care at home from Britain's 28,000 community nurses, and although it is those nurses who determine what medicines or medications are needed for re- supply, only a doctor can sign the necessary prescription form. This is a bureaucratic bottleneck that needs breaking. The object of my Bill is not to involve nurses in the diagnosis of a disease or its treatment--none want that--but to allow them more responsibility in the long-term, continuing management of a patient's care.
This is a liberalising Bill. It costs nothing. It increases efficiency and diminishes suffering. Imagine someone with a disability or a chronic disease or whom age has made infirm. A routine medication that he needs, often something ordinary such as a dressing or a lotion, runs out. The community nurse who visits regularly can do nothing, so the patient has to lug himself down to the nearest surgery--often long distances in the country--or through heavy London traffic, and wait in a queue for the doctor to fill in a form. Such madness imposes suffering and strain on hundreds of thousands. It causes frustration in the nursing profession and unnecessary inefficiency in the medical one.
The Bill would do away with the need for doctors to waste their time writing out prescriptions for such things as bandages or repeat dosages of pain killers. Nurses who had had training to the highest standards would be able to write them instead, but only from an agreed list of products--a nurses formulary, as it would be called. This decent liberalising measure is already in place in countries such as Canada and the United States, but in Britain there has been unpardonable delay. Report after report has looked into the suggestion that nurses should be given the power to prescribe, and report after report has said that we should go ahead with it because it is a good idea which will streamline procedures.
First, a committee headed by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege reported in 1986. A year later, the Select Committee on Social Services recommended that the Government get a move on. The Department of Health decided to go over the ground itself once again and its report was even more emphatic. It said, "Let nurses prescribe," and set a deadline of this year for making the legislative changes. Those changes constitute my Bill.
Section 52 of the Medicines Act 1968 needs amendment so that pharmacists can recognise prescriptions written by nurses. Likewise, section 27 of the National Health Service Act 1977 needs amendment so that prescriptions written by nurses can be dispensed.
The whole thrust of health care, not just in Britain but throughout the west, is to allow those who are elderly, disabled or chronically ill to get as much treatment at home as possible. It is cheaper and it is better that way. A
Column 945
successful system of health care is one that keeps as many people as possible away from the queue at the doctor's surgery or the hospital clinic.That is why the British Medical Association wants to see the legislation passed. It knows that nurses already write out prescriptions unofficially for the overworked doctor to scrawl his incomprehensible signature on. But it knows, too, that that is not good practice.
Britain's nurses want the change and the responsibility and training that would go with it because they want the best, fastest, most uncluttered service for their patients. They can see the absurdity of cancer patients suffering great pain at home who cannot have the dosage of their painkiller altered by the nurse who looks after them. They know the inconvenience facing an incontinent elderly person who cannot even get something as simple as a bedpad without a visit to the doctor.
But most of all, it is the public who need the change. The extension of limited prescribing rights to nurses is supported by groups such as Age Concern and the Spastics Society, by those trying to help the homeless, who generally do not have resort to a general practitioner, and by those helping the terminally ill to live out their last days without disruption.
But the net goes far further than that. Just to give one example, thousands of diabetics who regularly have to inject themselves with insulin would be able to get their supplies of syringes from their community nurses.
The Bill appeals to me as a Conservative, as I know it appeals to those on the Opposition side who have supported me, because it liberalises, because it strips back a layer of form filling, because it costs nothing. It reflects the times by allowing the best modern practice and it reflects a need--the need to deliver our health services with the maximum of efficiency and a minimum of fuss. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir David Price, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Ms. Hilary Armstrong and Mr. Roger Sims.
Nurse Prescribing
Mr. Dudley Fishburn accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Medicines Act 1968, the National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 in respect of pharmaceutical services ; to make provision for registered nurses to prescribe medicinal products in certain circumstances ; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
Column 946
Opposition Day
[4th Allotted Day]
Recession in Industry
3.45 pm
Mr. Speaker : I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Gordon Brown (Dunfermline, East) : I beg to move,
That this House is concerned about the deepening recession which is bringing rising bankruptcies and closures, falling output and investment and fast rising unemployment hitting all regions and all industries ; notes that Britain has the biggest trade gap, the highest interest rates and worst inflation of its major European competitors ; condemns the Government for the economic mismanagement that has created a recession that is happening nowhere else in Western Europe ; and calls for an immediate reduction in interest rates, a Budget for investment in industry, and a modern industrial policy to improve Britain's training and technological capabilities and to promote regional economic development.
The motion states that urgent measures are needed to tackle the recession, British industry needs a long-term policy, as an immediate measure interest rates should be cut, we need the Chancellor to plan a Budget giving investment incentives for the future, and the new industry policy for the 1990s--similar to that practised by our successful competitors overseas-- must ensure a proper commitment to training, technology and regional economic development.
The motion is urgent because, as right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House know, 100 companies throughout Britain will go bankrupt today alone. This week, at least 5,000 men and women will lose their jobs in manufacturing industry alone. Yesterday's Confederation of British Industry survey reported that only 4 per cent. of British firms are in any way optimistic about the future. No other western European country is losing so many jobs, and so many companies, at such a fast rate as the United Kingdom. The tragedy is that that is occurring in every area, region, occupation and profession. It is also tragic that the Government's response to our motion does not make one mention of their concern about the loss of businesses, closures and bankruptcies, and the rising unemployment that confronts all parts of the country.
Eleven and a half years ago, the Government set out to eliminate assistance to industry. They not only eliminated assistance but much of industry as well. First, we were told by Ministers that there was to be no recession. As the Prime Minister said to us on 6 December 1989 in his previous office as Chancellor of the Exchequer : "I do not think that a recession is either likely or necessary." He remarked that those who predicted recession were "professional pessimists".
Next, we were told that there would be no recession, but that there would be a pause--a turn of phrase which is in the style of the earlier prediction about an inflationary blip. As recently as 30 October 1990, we were told that if there were to be a recession, it would be short ; then that it would be small ; then that it would be shallow ; then that it would be modest. When it was proved that the recession would not be short, small, shallow or modest, the present
Column 947
Chancellor agreed in a radio interview on 1 January that there was a recession, but that there would be a prize at the end of it. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, not to be outdone in that battle of euphemisms, made one visit to a House of Lords Select Committee just before Christmas, and told it :"When I go north to Scotland, if you mention the word recession, then they think you are referring to some dim and distant time in 1981, and you have to explain that you are referring to the south-east of England."
Note that the Secretary of State responsible for managing this country's industrial policy thinks that recession is taking place only in the south- east. He told the Committee also that that meant there was "some silver lining".
Are the closure of Howdens, the rundown of Andersons, the rundown of Plessey, the rundown of Clydesdale, and the rundown of Cummins in Scotland- -all those firms have announced redundancies within the past few days with a total loss in one day yesterday of 1,000 jobs--all part of the same "silver lining"?
Will the Minister stand outside the jobcentre today in my constituency or those of my hon. Friends--indeed, those in many Conservative Members' constituencies--and tell hundreds of workers who are having to sign on for the first time that there is no recession in Scotland and the north-east?
Will the Secretary of State come to my constituency or to others to say that our recessionary problems refer to
"some dim and distant time in 1981"?
Is he really saying that people are being made redundant throughout the country--in the north, north-west, Yorkshire, Wales and Scotland--because we are still enjoying that economic miracle? Ministers told us that there was an economic miracle when there was not. Now they insist on telling us that there is no recession in much of the country, when we know there is. How can we trust them with the future, when they deny the problems of the present and of the past? I thought that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had no policies for the recession because he was ideologically inclined against any Government action at all. Now I know that he has no such policies because he does not believe that in much of the country there is a recession. The last Trade and Industry Secretary but one was praised because it was said that he did not bring problems, but solutions. This Trade and Industry Secretary cannot bring solutions, because he cannot even admit that there are problems.
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : The hon. Gentleman is talking about denying the policies of the past, but why is it that, in the past, when the Labour party was in power, this country's share of world trade went down year after year, whereas now, with the present Government in power, we have maintained our share of world trade?
Mr. Brown : I think that the hon. Gentleman must have the wrong briefing note from Conservative central office. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, the fact of the matter is that, under Labour, our share of manufacturing in world trade went up and under this Conservative Government that share has gone down substantially. If the Secretary of State or any other Conservative Member wants to correct me, I shall be happy to give way at this point.
Column 948
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : If the hon. Gentleman is saying that that is the case, will he quote the figures to the House?
Mr. Brown : In 1979, our share of manufacturing world trade was roughly 10 per cent., and now it is about 8 per cent. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the figures during the debate if he asks me again.
Let me tell the Secretary of State about the severity of the recession that he has for so long attempted to deny. When factories up and down the country are already producing less than in 1979--5 per cent. less in chemical engineering, 9 per cent. less in metal products, 26 per cent. less in textiles, 33 per cent. less in man-made fibres ; when manufacturing investment has barely increased overall since 1979 ; when we have lost 2 million jobs in manufacturing, and manufacturing employment is set to fall below 5 million for the first time this century ; when, for thousands of factories and companies this is not a downturn on the road to an upturn but a downturn on the road to closure for ever ; and when the interest rate bill, as Conservative Members know from their own constituents, was £6 billion in 1979 and is now an astonishing £30 billion for small and large industry throughout the country, this is not, as the Confederation of British Industry confirmed yesterday, merely a recession which is deepening faster than ever, but a recession which is unique to Britain and is happening nowhere else in western Europe.
Sir William Clark (Croydon, South) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that manufacturing output since 1979 is about 12 per cent. higher than it was, whereas under the previous Labour Government manufacturing output fell by 2.5 per cent?
Mr. Brown : I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman the correct figure. Manufacturing output, according to the latest account, is up by only 7 per cent. since 1979. In that time it has risen by 18 per cent. in Germany and by nearly 50 per cent. in Japan. That is the real position--we have had the slowest rise in manufacturing output of almost all our major competitors.
This is not a recession for which world conditions, OPEC, the Gulf crisis or the European Community can be blamed. This recession has been designed, fashioned and made in Downing street. We are not in the sixth month of a Europewide recession. Investment is not falling in the European Community ; output has not slumped by £5 billion in six months in any other major European country. No other country in western Europe has experienced the same combination of falling orders, falling employment, falling investment and now falling exports.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : Does the hon. Gentleman now regret his commitment to the pound's entry into the exchange rate mechanism, which has resulted in interest rates remaining high?
Mr. Brown : Not at all. I think that many Conservative Members were unhappy about the party-political advantage that the Chancellor tried to extract from entry at the time ; but what Labour said before, during and after the event was that ERM entry must be accompanied by a proper policy for industry, so that we can make the commitment to training, technology and regional economic development that has been made by all our competitors that are also in the ERM.
Column 949
Mr. Budgen : What about the question?
Mr. Brown : The hon. Gentleman may think that he asked me a different question, but I replied to the question that he asked me.
Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what my hon. Friend said? The Opposition motion refers to the need for an
"immediate reduction in interest rates".
I assume that the hon. Gentleman believes in that ; but, given his and my support for the exchange rate mechanism, how will that be possible unless-- as the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) pointed out--the pound is allowed to fall outside the ERM brackets?
Mr. Brown : I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is advancing the proposition that interest rates can never be reduced within the exchange rate mechanism, but let me tell him that the question whether they should fall now is a matter of judgment ; and I prefer the judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to that of the Conservative Ministers who have failed the country over the past few years.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us have one hon. Member on his feet at a time.
Mr. Brown : I will not give way again.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Lilley) : The hon. Gentleman said that he preferred the judgment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Can he name any occasion on which his right hon. and learned Friend has not believed that interest rates should be cut?
Mr. Brown : I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what happened in 1988, if that is what he is referring to. In 1988, we advocated a cut in interest rates, but what we did not advocate was a Budget that put money into the economy in a way that was geared disproportionately towards the higher income earners.
Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North) rose --
Mr. Brown : I must make some progress. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
All over Europe, employment in the manufacturing industries is rising. It is rising by nearly 1 per cent. in France, and by 3.5 per cent. in Germany ; it is falling, uniquely, in Britain by 1.4 per cent. This from the party that told us that it had brought an employment miracle. Unemployment is now rising faster here than in any of our major European competitors.
In western Europe, manufacturing output is moving ahead. It is moving ahead by 4 per cent. in Germany, by 3 per cent. in France and by 3 per cent. in Europe as a whole ; but it is falling, uniquely, in Britain. It is rising in almost every country except Conservative Britain. This from the party that promised not an economic recession, but an economic miracle.
Let us look at investment for the future. In Europe, business investment is rising by 4.9 per cent. in both Germany and France, by 4 per cent. in Italy and by 3 per cent. in Europe as a whole, and by 6 per cent. in Japan. It
Column 950
is falling, uniquely, in Britain--by 3 per cent. according to the latest OECD estimate. This from the party that said that it was presiding over an investment miracle, rather than the investment collapse that we are now experiencing.We are the only European country where investment is falling in the run-up to 1992--the only country which faces the harsher conditions of the single European market with less investment this year than last, and less investment last year than the year before. This is not a Europewide recession but a British recession, made in Britain by the mistakes of Conservative Ministers.
Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East) : The hon. Gentleman seems to take great delight from talking down this country. If our record is so disastrous, as he likes to suggest, why have 700 foreign companies decided to invest in the west midlands, the heart of the United Kingdom? Why did not they go elsewhere?
Mr. Brown : Of course we welcome foreign investment in Britain. It is unfortunate that the Department of Trade and Industry is selling Britain abroad as a low-wage country. We welcome foreign investment in Britain, but what worries me is that jobs are being lost not only in foreign companies but in domestic companies right, left and centre up and down the country. If we are to keep jobs in foreign and domestic firms, we shall have to tackle the problems that they face. That is precisely what we propose to do.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) rose --
| Next Section
| Home Page |