| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 869
Minister and his predecessors, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), whose Parliamentary Private Secretary I was, worked hard to arrive at a solution that will deal with the injustice without imposing intolerable burdens on the coal industry, which continues to serve the nation in a relentlessly more efficient manner. The fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has been prepared to listen to amendments, not just from the Opposition but from his hon. Friends, has been warmly welcomed. In two key areas--arbitration and blight--the Government have decided to rely on reserve powers. It is right that the Bill should contain what earlier I called the rule of the threat of law. I hope that British Coal will now demonstrate a commitment to making its voluntary codes of practice on arbitration and blight work. The corporation is still somewhat wobbly and will certainly have to change its stance if the public are to be sufficiently reassured. In my constituency last October I finally secured British Coal's agreement to accept liability for some properties with a history of subsidence, but that acceptance needs to be followed up by speedy and sympathetic action. As employment in the industry continues to contract, so British Coal will increasingly require to win the good will of the areas in which it wishes to work. If it fails to implement the voluntary agreements, in the spirit and to the letter, there will be pressure to activate the statutory regulations that we have provided for in the Bill. I trust that that will be unnecessary, but the ball is firmly in British Coal's court.10.32 pm
Mr. Lofthouse : I, too, very much welcome the Bill. It was a good Bill when it was introduced and it has been improved in Committee. However, there is still a major fault that could easily be rectified, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. I greatly welcome clause 32(3), which, in line 46, provides that
"the Corporation may make such proposals as to the materials for and the method of construction of the property as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence." I have always believed that if British Coal, the local authorities and the private developers had jointly considered providing rafts under properties where British Coal knew that it was going to mine, they would have saved themselves millions of pounds. Other organisations would also have been saved millions of pounds. Another worrying aspect is that, if a local mine is threatened with major expenditure due to subsidence, that mine's survival will also be endangered. We should consider prevention rather than compensation. Rather than refer merely to materials for construction, we should enable the Bill to confer on British Coal the right to agree with the builders or the local authorities that, if they expect subsidence, they will meet the costs of a raft. That would cost only £2,000 or £3,000 a dwelling but would save a great deal should subsidence occur. If the effect can be minimised when properties are erected, we should write that provision into the Bill.
Column 870
10.35 pmMr. Hayward : The Bill is important not only to areas where mining still occurs but to areas such as those that the Minister and I represent, where coal mining ceased many years ago but which still suffer the problems of coal-mining subsidence.
The Bill provides clarity for people who never expected to suffer from the problem of subsidence because coal mining had stopped so many years ago. It does not provide the certainty that they will gain from a claim, but it provides clarity in the form of the procedures by which to pursue a claim for subsidence and what is defined as subsidence. It provides clarity and a shift in the burden of proof. The burden is now on the Coal Board rather than on the applicant, which is especially important.
Finally, because of an amendment moved by Conservative members of the Committee, the Bill now provides the right for all people to pursue arbitration without British Coal objecting. It is a paramount right for all individuals to be able to pursue a claim to the end, even if they are opposed by British Coal.
For those reasons, I believe that we have a Bill of which we can all be proud, and I hope that it will move to another place. 10.36 pm
Mr. Meale : To conclude this phase of the legislation, I should like to thank a number of hon. Members from all parties who have been involved in trying to introduce new legislation to sort out the horrific mess. I also pay tribute to the Minister and to his predecessor who started the whole process, ably and gallantly pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has done a magnificent job at every stage in Committee and in the House. We must also remember others who have battled and given advice, such as ex-Members of Parliament, some of whom until recently have actively given advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and me. Unfortunately, one--Lord Taylor of Mansfield- -is no longer around, but we must pay tribute to him because he was never slow in coming forward to give advice to my hon. Friend, to me and to others.
We should also pay tribute to the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence--COALS--to the representative organisations of local authorities, to their officials and elected members from the all the authorities involved who have done a magnificent job in bringing the issue to the fore and in making progress towards a change on the statute book. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the united industries working party--which has been mentioned--which provided help.
However, I must say to the Minister--as he would expect me to--that in such cases one sometimes experiences a little cloud of disappointment. I am disappointed especially about the issue of information, which I believe should be made available to everyone if real justice is to be achieved. I should have liked advice centres and a register of damage to properties included in the Bill. I hope that the other place will agree on that.
The Bill has been a magnificent effort by everyone involved and especially those who are suffering damage to their homes throughout the coalfield areas. Their pressure,
Column 871
persistence and search for justice will, I hope and believe, one day lead to a subsidence back to a better time for them.10.38 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : A fair amount of pressure has been lifted from--
Mr. Hayward : Raising the flag.
Mr. Haynes : No, I am not raising the flag.
A fair amount of pressure concerned with mining subsidence has been lifted from the shoulders of hon. Members. The Bill is a step in the right direction. I want to pay the Minister a compliment. [Hon. Members :-- "Take it steady."] In answer to my hon. Friends, I must say that the Minister has had a real education about mining. He has made it his business to get about the mining areas
Mr. Haynes : Yes. Who would have thought that the Minister would wear a mining helmet, knee pads and pit boots, and go into the pithead bath afterwards? Some of us did it for many years. We have real experience. We have also experienced the fact that the Minister has got to know about the industry and its problems. I hope that he will continue in that way until the next election when we shall be sitting on the Government Benches. We shall have a different Minister with responsibility for mining, but at the moment I am complimenting the present Minister for his work, especially on the Bill. He has listened to what we said in Committee and he has proved beyond all doubt that many of our points that were rejected in Committee are now accepted because they have been included today.
However, I am a little disappointed about the advice centres. I said a little earlier that it may happen that in the other place--
Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : Where you are going.
Mr. Haynes : Shut up. The advice centres may be accepted in the other place.
I want to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I remember his predecessor, Dennis Concannon, all those years back when pressure was being put on the Government to do something about the problem. Before him was our noble Friend Lord Taylor, who passed on last week. I have been to the other place and listened to some of his contributions on the mining industry, especially about mining subsidence, and about how people suffered in his day. He left this place in 1966 to go down yonder. The problem has been going on for a long while. At long last, something has happened. [ Hon. Members :-- "A Tory Government."] We have a Bill. We have been working together in the interests of our constituents. It is all right for hon. Members to bawl
Column 872
from a sedentary position, trying to make a stupid political point. We have worked together in Committee to change the Bill and we have been successful.I said earlier that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) was denied an opportunity today. In Committee, he agreed with many of our points. The Government kept him out of the Chamber today because he was going to agree with us on the advice centres. I am convinced that when the Bill comes back from the other place, it will contain a clause on advice centres. I want to know from the Minister what he intends to do about it. I hope that he will leave it there. If he does not, after the next election, we shall put it in. We shall put some other things in, too. Our constituents have suffered long enough.
I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). He is an ex-miner, like one or two of us. He is not a farmer. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has got his way about his potato field. If it sinks in the middle he will get compensation. This Government have poured money in the farmers' pockets and here we go again. We are damned well agreeing with it again.
If a farmer suffers because of mining subsidence, he is entitled to compensation or to have things put right. There is no doubt about that. That is fair. The Bill has become fair but it needs to be a bit fairer. I come back again to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley. He has a wonderful football team in his mining constituency. We play them twice a season. We kick them all over the pitch. The pitch goes up and down all over the place. It is a terrible pitch. I do not know whether the club has claimed for mining subsidence damage, but it ought to--it ought to make a claim and go to arbitration now that the Government are allowing people to do that.
There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has used his mining experience at the Dispatch Box, but he has also had some good advice. He knows what I am talking about. The Minister has had all his advice free. My hon. Friend has had to pay for his, but he has had first- class advice. That is why he has been able to stand at the Dispatch Box on Report and Third Reading and to do a first-class job in Committee.
We have all done our bit in this Bill, including hon. Members who served on the Committee such as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I remember some of the speeches that he made. The Tory Members did not like them at all, but they were good speeches. I am looking at my watch, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we won many of the arguments and we shall go on to win more. The important thing is that to achieve what we have in this Bill, never mind that the Tories are in control here at Westminster. We have worked together and made the Bill the way it is--and given the opportunity, we shall change it again.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Column 873
Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill [Money] Queen's Recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise--
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making grants to persons entitled to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme ; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money into the Forestry Fund which is attributable to any provision of that Act for the making of grants to the verderers of the New Forest.-- [Mr. Maclean.]
10.48 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : I shall be brief, because I do not intend to prolong the debate. I should simply like the Minister to confirm a few minor points. Paragraph (a) of the motion refers to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme. The Minister will confirm that that part of the Bill will come into operation immediately once the Bill is enacted. It provides a legal basis and regularises the position on such payments, which have existed since 1980.
Paragraph (b) refers to grants to the verderers. Such payments have existed since 1973 and are covered in clause 4 of the Bill, which will come into immediate operation once the measure has completed its parliamentary passage, as will clause 3. Will the Minister confirm that that sum has not exceeded £10,000 per annum since 1973? Can he predict how that will continue?
My last point is on the main part of the Bill and the restructuring and reorganisation of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. The question of the £10 million
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. That goes beyond the scope of the motion before the House.
Mr. Pike : This relates to the financial implications.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The motion relates to suckler cows and New Forest verderers.
Mr. Pike : I shall leave the matter there. We can cover it in Committee on Thursday.
10.50 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : I wish to make one small point about the suckler cow premium scheme. Will my hon. Friend the Minister urge his counterparts in the European Community to concentrate the support for the beef industry on the suckler cow scheme? In that way we shall serve the best interests of the beef industry and encourage that part of it which produces the quality beef for which this country has long had a good reputation. The special beef premium scheme does not necessarily go towards the production of beef that is entirely satisfactory to the housewife and at the end of the day the beef industry must satisfy her. We can produce absolutely top quality beef--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It may be my mistake, but I do not know what suckler cows have to do with beef production. Am I mistaken?
Column 874
Mr. Gill : With all due respect, beef does come from the suckler cow herds.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the fact that when we expend these moneys on suckler cows we are doing a worthwhile job for the British beef industry because it encourages the production of quality beef which can be used substantially to improve the market for the industry's product. I make the plea that future support through a premium is concentrated on that part of the industry rather than on other parts.
10.51 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : Perhaps I can be helpful toyou, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the whole House by saying that although some wonderful scientific and implant techniques are available these days, it is usually handy to have a cow first before producing beef cattle or calves.
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said about the importance of the suckler cow premium system. In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we would expect the provisions on both the suckler cow scheme and the New Forest verderers' grants to come into operation as soon as the Bill is passed. I recollect that in no single year has more than £10,000 been granted.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise--
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making grants to persons entitled to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme ; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money into the Forestry Fund which is attributable to any provision of that Act for the making of grants to the verderers of the New Forest.
Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill [Ways and Means]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of the supervision of grading of livestock carcases pursuant to any Community obligation and the payment of such fees into the Consolidated Fund.-- [Mr. Maclean.]
10.52 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : Will the Minister confirm that this makes preparation for payments that will commence from 1 January 1992?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : I am happy to confirm that Question put and agreed to.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Northern Ireland
Motion made, and Question put forwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Column 875
That the draft Dangerous Vessels (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.-- [Mr. Boswell.]Question agreed to.
Education
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.). That the draft Education Reform Act 1988 (Application of Section 122 to Institutions in Wales) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Customs controls on baggage
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8353/90 on abolition of controls and formalities on cabin and checked baggage on intra -Community flights and sea crossings ; supports the Government's intention to ensure that Member States retain the right to carry out checks at the internal border to protect society against illegal importations of drugs and other prohibited goods, to control immigration and to counteract terrorism and other serious crime ; and notes with concern the practical and infrastructural problems for airports that could be caused by the draft proposals.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
Question agreed to.
Column 876
Eye Test Charges
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Boswell.]
10.53 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : Sadly, nothing illustrates the Government's real intention towards the national health service more than the disastrous decision in 1988 to abolish free eye tests. The Government simply ignored the warnings that abolition would have a serious effect on the health of large numbers of our nation. The then Secretary of State for Health refused to believe Labour Members when we told him that if he stopped paying for free eye tests, opticians would have to start charging.
Last week, in the debate on the national health service, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) reminded the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have been more wrong. In November 1988, the right hon. and learned Gentleman assured the House :
"the charge for the eye test will steadily disappear that is my strong personal opinion."--[ Official Report, 1 November 1988 ; Vol 139, c. 927.]
He has certainly been proved wrong, because today every optician charges between £10 and £17 for an eye test. As a result of that charge, hundreds of thousands of people face an increased risk of going blind or developing other serious diseases as they are deterred from visiting the optician by the cost of the eye test.
It was not just the Labour party who warned the Government about the potential serious situation that has now developed. The main professional body also advised against abolishing the free test and stressed its worthiness. A survey conducted by the British College of Optometrists in 1986 showed that of the 2,194 referrals made as a result of the eye test, older people--who formed a large group of those questioned--were particularly at risk from cataracts, macula degeneration, glaucoma, diabetes and other serious medical conditions. The college concluded that such people would be at risk if the free test were abolished as the charge would deter them from seeking such a test. Despite the survey and other early warnings, the Government refused to exempt pensioners from the charges. Since 1986, various surveys have been conducted which confirm the Labour party's fears that there would be widespread resistance to charges, particularly from the elderly.
In June 1990, the Consumers Association conducted a survey on eye testing and its findings were published in Which? The survey covered 1,094 adults who represented the public. It discovered that two in five people would go for an eye test less often once the charges were introduced, that two in five of those exempt from those charges thought that they had to pay and that nearly half those over 40 who were exempt from the charges also thought that they had to pay. The latter evidence was particularly worrying, given the increased incidence of eye disease in that age group.
The Consumers Association findings took into account the 7 per cent. increase in the number of eye tests as people rushed to beat the charges. However, even comparing the number of eye tests conducted in the year to April 1989 with those conducted in the year to April 1988, it is clear
Column 877
that tests were down by about one fifth-- more than 2.5 million in England and Wales--which represented a great reduction.The survey concluded that, given that about one eye test in 20 results is a referral for medical examinations for eye disease or other medical conditions, that drop in examinations may have led to 125,000 fewer referrals with consequent repercussions for the early detection of diseases and possible increased long-term burden on the national health service. Therefore, the rather mean and irresponsible decision to charge for eye testing has not just caused untold human misery and pain--it has also been an economic mistake. Someone with an advanced disease is likely to cost the NHS far more than someone whose disease is diagnosed early.
Recently, there has been more evidence that the decision was bad. On 12 April, the Association of Optometrists published the findings of a major MORI survey on eye testing, which showed that the number of eye examinations had plummeted by one fifth since 1988. The survey, in which the Economists Advisory Group sampled 252 practices of members of the association, said :
"In comparing survey data on each quarter in 1988, 1989 and 1990, the study estimates that eye examinations during 1990 were 20.9 per cent. fewer, on a national basis, than during 1988."
It stated that, in particular, there were an estimated 3.6 million eye examinations in the first quarter of 1989, just before the Government abolished universal free eye examinations. It said that, in the second quarter of that year--after charges were introduced--the number of estimated eye examinations shrank to 2.4 million, down nearly 32 per cent. Subsequently during 1990, estimated eye examinations have averaged 2.5 million a quarter, almost 21 per cent. down on the 1988 quarterly average of 3.2 million. Those are alarming figures.
A second survey, conducted at the same time and by the same group and commissioned by the Association of Optometrists, showed that a majority of the public believed that eye examinations should be free to all. It is commendable that the public take such a good social attitude. The survey updated trend information spanning seven years and was carried out to establish public attitudes to eye examinations. It was conducted among more than 2,000 people aged 15-plus throughout Britain, and it concluded :
"The Government's decision, in April 1989, to abolish universal free eye examinations is not popular amongst the public. Nearly three-fifths (57 per cent.) of those interviewed said everyone should be able to have a free eye examination'. A quarter (26 per cent.) said free examinations should be available only to those groups currently eligible, namely children under 16, students aged 19 in full time education, those on income support or family credit"-- many of whom are currently entitled to free eye tests
"those registered blind or partially sighted, those with glaucoma, those aged over 40 who have a close relative suffering from glaucoma, and those suffering from diabetes."
As might be expected, the public were socially aware and were concerned about the abolition of the free tests.
The British College of Optometrists, which carried out the work, said that in the two years since fees were imposed about 4 million fewer people had had their eyes tested. That represents a drop of about 8 per cent. per year. Any health Minister worth his salt would take those alarming figures seriously. Some 400,000 of those would have been referred for further medical attention and half of those referred would have been suffering from a major eye
Column 878
disease such as cataract or glaucoma. Thousands more would have shown early warning signs of illnesses such hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and, in extreme cases, brain tumours.When I looked to my constituency for a local angle, I worked out that, based on those figures, 10,000 of my constituents in Halifax would have gone without tests, and perhaps 1,000 of them would have missed important medical detection. That statistic is unforgivable, alarming and unnecessary in view of the amount of money that the Government have saved.
Today, I received a letter from Age Concern, which argues forcefully for the annual free test to be reinstated for elderly people. It is important to hear the opinions of the various groups concerned with vulnerable sections of society. Age Concern states in the letter :
"Older people may need encouragement to visit the optician as they tend to make do' with spectacles which are ill-fitting or which no longer correct their vision effectively. Eye test fees impose an extra barrier to older people who need to seek help."
There are many myths about who can and cannot receive free tests. Age Concern makes the important point :
"The Government has repeatedly argued that it aims to target help on people most in need, and that people on income support, and some priority groups, continue to receive free eye tests. Although older people whose incomes are just above income support levels can receive help, they have to put in a claim. Many older people are reluctant to fill in what are often long and complicated forms, and around one fifth of older people do not claim benefits to which they are entitled."
We know that that is often the case with elderly people. The letter continues :
"The recent increase in the state pension means that married couples under the age of 75 now receive 10p over the income support limit and are therefore no longer automatically eligible for free eye tests."
Age Concern is obviously concerned that that problem should be solved.
Local opticians in my constituency, and those of other Members--I am sure that the Minister has been lobbied over this--have called for free eye tests for all over 65. That confirms the point that I have made, and that has been made so forcefully by others, that people in that age group tend to have the most problems with their eyes. It is important to stress that that age group is not automatically excluded. As Age Concern stated, because of the recent increases in state pension, many of them will not be.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind makes a similar plea in a letter that it sent me when it knew that I had this Adjournment debate, and which I received today. It states that all pensioners should be exempt and that research overwhelmingly shows that that group of people are those most vulnerable to eye disease. It quotes Professor John Marshall of the Institute of Opthalmology, who estimates that about 78 per cent. of the 78 to 85 age group have major eye disease. That is an important point.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind also states--this may pre-empt something that the Minister may say in his defence--that it commissioned a survey last year, which I believe the Government have used to support their claims that the issue was not important. The survey showed that people had been deterred from eye tests, but it also showed that a high number of people claimed to have had eye tests. It stated that the figure was similar to that in the Government's survey. We know that the
| Next Section
| Home Page |