House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jun 1991

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport) : My right hon. and learned Friend's plans to help those who cannot read or write are most welcome. It has been estimated that 30 per cent. of the long-term unemployed are innumerate or illiterate or both. Would he like to come to Stockport to see the adult literacy and numeracy unit run by Mrs. Lois Haslam ? The unit conducts one- to-one contact with those who cannot read or write, and is staffed largely by volunteers. A person who cannot read or answer a job advertisement is at an enormous disadvantage. Good work has been done at the unit, and I recommend that my right hon. and learned Friend has a look at it.

Mr. Howard : I was in Stockport only a couple of weeks ago, but I regret that I did not visit the centre to which my hon. Friend referred. I should like to do so the next time that I am in Stockport.

Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith) : Surely the Secretary of State is weeping crocodile tears for the unemployed. In my constituency, a large fertiliser plant, SAI, is being deliberately closed down, although it is one of the most efficient plants in the United Kingdom, because the Government are opposed to its takeover by Kemira, a Finnish state-owned company. Is that not a disgrace and a kick in the teeth? It shows the Government's double standards.

Column 306

Mr. Howard : If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Labour party should not adopt a proper competition policy that requires scrutiny of such matters, he should put his question to his Front-Bench colleagues.

The Labour party is expert at shedding crocodile tears. It declaims about the rise in unemployment while constantly pressing for measures that would be certain to increase unemployment substantially.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency--also a coal-mining area-- employment has risen much faster than the national average in recent years? We do not moan about the problems ; we talk about the strengths and invite private industry to come to our area. There are excellent job clubs in Derby and in south Derbyshire. Will my right hon. and learned Friend build on the strengths of such job clubs, especially by making their services available to unemployed people on a much shorter time scale than the current six months that they have to be unemployed to qualify?

Mr. Howard : I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. She will appreciate that the package that I announced today includes help for the newly unemployed, which will be useful to the people to whom she referred. I shall bear her suggestion in mind for the future.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) : Sadly, this will not be the last time that the Secretary of State will come to the House to complete a U-turn on training. It is a pity that there could not have been a more substantial return at least to the levels of payment of a few years ago. The sickest thing about today's announcement is that the 60,000 makework opportunities will be counted in the Government's figure for the jobs that they have created. They will be counted as employment when no one on the scheme will regard them as proper jobs. People will not get the rate for the job, and they will have no employment rights.

To put the matter in context, the proposal involves 6,000 places--that is the number by which the level of unemployment in Scotland increased in one month. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the community programme had been continued and had paid the rate for the job, people on the programme would have received over £90 a week, while people on this new scheme will receive £50 a week?

Mr. Howard : I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the facts. I did not refer to 6,000 places. Next year, 60,000 people will be helped by employment action, and 250,000 people, in addition to the 650,000 we help now, will be helped by these measures. The precise level at which people on the scheme will be paid will depend on the level of benefit to which they are entitled, as I made clear in my statement. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sedgefield, as they mutter about this aspect, will reflect on how much help they would be able to give the unemployed if they introduced a scheme that insisted on payment of not only the rate for the job, but the rate of the minimum wage. The amount of help would be truly derisory, even if they were able to get any money from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and they know it.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Column 307

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am genuinely sorry not to have been able to call every hon. Member, but I shall bear in mind those whom I have been unable to call when we next deal with this matter.

Point of Order

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a procedural matter relating to amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill? I served on the Standing Committee considering the Environmental Protection Bill 1990, which led to the formation of the three countryside agencies and Scotttish Natural Heritage. During the Bill's passage, Committee members were assured that no changes would be made to sites of special scientific interest on a national basis, and that such changes would not be included in a Scottish Bill either, as they were a national issue.

On 6 June, contrary to those assurances, the Government accepted an amendment in the other place allowing a right of appeal in relation to SSIs, in Scotland only. Should not the Secretary of State make a statement about that? Is the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill the right legislation in which to frame such amendments, bearing in mind that the Government have pandered to vested landowning interests contrary to the assurances given in Committee?

Mr. Speaker : I do not think that that is a matter for me. It is very much a matter for the Government, but if the Bill is now in the other place, it will return to the Commons and the Government will have to explain the amendment. The hon. Gentleman will then have the opportunity to put his point.

BILLS PRESENTED

Licensing of Ticket Sales

Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to provide for the licensing of ticket sales for sporting events and entertainments ; and to make further provision with respect to the powers exercisable by local authorities in relation to such sales : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Etc.

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Ms. Mildred Gordon, presented a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 ; to make further provision in respect of the offences of rape and sexual assault ; to provide protection for women at risk of rape, sexual assault or domestic violence ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Column 308

Pet Animals (Amendment)

4.26 pm

Mr. David Amess (Basildon) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951.

The inspiration for the Bill comes from a song that my children are often heard singing :

"How much is that doggie in the window,

The one with the waggly tail,

How much is that doggie in the window,

I do hope that doggie's for sale."

My Bill is about animal welfare. It is not an attack on pet shop owners, and it is certainly not an attempt to spoil children's enjoyment. For a number of years, my long-suffering parents lived in fear of whatever animal their wayward child would next bring home. There was no limit to the range of animals that I might capture or purchase from a pet shop : goats, peacocks, pheasants, ducks, geese, salamanders, newts, snakes, frogs, toads, dogs and many others. As a small child, I should never have been allowed to buy those animals. I had, and still have, responsible parents, who made sure that the animals were well looked after ; sadly, however, there are too many instances throughout the country of cruelty to animals, which are reported by the RSPCA and other well-meaning, caring groups.

"Which?" recommends that anyone who purchases an animal should first consider

"who'll be responsible for your pet? Remember, children can lose interest".

"Which?" also asks :

"how much time do you want to spend looking after your pet? Who'll look after it when you're on holiday?

Is someone at home for most of the day, or should you choose a pet that's happy on its own?

Can you afford to keep the pet of your choice? Consider vets' bills, food, insurance and the cost of boarding when you're away. Which kind of pet is most suitable for the size and type of home you have?

Do you want a long-term or short-term commitment?"

parrots, for instance, can live for more than 100 years

"many young animals need peace, quiet and lots of your time when they're new ; never buy a pet as a surprise for someone, unless you're prepared to keep it yourself if it's rejected".

"Which?" says that it should be remembered that a pet is a commitment for 365 days a year.

Only last year, the "Which?" organisation visited 100 pet shops and made return visits to 29. The majority had good practices, but in a minority it was clear that the owners had no idea how to keep the animals that they were offering for sale. I have a few examples. One shopowner told a child who wanted to purchase two guinea pigs that it was all right to keep two males together in the same cage, but very soon, one male guinea pig killed the other. Another told a child that he could keep a red-eared terrapin in an unheated tank, but terrapins need to be kept in warm water at a temperature between 23 and 30 deg C, so the terrapin died very soon after it had been bought. Perhaps the most appalling example concerned a baby alligator. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen baby alligators, but they are rather cute, and look like a lizard. A pet shop owner sold a baby alligator to a child and, within a short time, the parents had to keep the alligator in a bath.

My Bill amends the Pet Animals Act 1951. This legislation is now 40 years old, and the range of animals

Column 309

that are for sale in pet shops has altered tremendously in that time. There was an amendment to the Act in 1983, but my Bill will bring it much more up to date. My proposals are as follows. First, it should be mandatory for a qualified veterinary surgeon to carry out an inspection before the local authority decides whether to issue a licence. At the moment, the inspection can be carried out by a vet or "such similar person". Local authorities should have right of entry to unlicensed premises where they suspect that animals are being sold. Most important of all, it is crazy that, at the moment, a 12-year-old can go into a pet shop and buy a piranha or a python. My Bill would ensure that no animal will be sold to a person under the age of 16 unless a parent is present and has given permission. Furthermore, no animal should be kept for sale unless the vendor is familiar with how to care for the health and welfare of that animal. Without appropriate written instructions on this, no animal should be entrusted into the prospective purchaser's hands.

So as to improve control over the trading of dogs, the Bill requires every person who keeps a breeding establishment or who carries on a business that includes the selling of dogs as a pet to keep a record showing details of the dogs and where they have been bought and sold. I know that another Bill deals with puppy farming. This should make it difficult for a dog breeder to claim that he is operating only on a small scale or with only one or two bitches. Local authorities that license pet shops under the Pet Animals Act 1951 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 will have the power to demand to see the records. Schedule 3 to the Deer Bill contains a form of record that could serve as a model for the proposals in my Bill. I make no apology for attempting to introduce yet more animal welfare legislation this year. I trust that I take the House with me when I assert that at the very heart of a civilised society is the judgment of how animals should be treated. My Bill will help to improve the general welfare of animals. I hope that the House will be seen to have a big heart today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Harry Cohen, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Alan Meale, and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim.

Pet Animals (Amendment)

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951 : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 June, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

POINT OF ORDER

4.34 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to inform you, as briefly as I can, of the circumstances in which I escorted around

Column 310

Parliament today blind and partially sighted students from Temple Banks school in my constituency. It is appalling that the House has no facilities, such as a rest room, that members of the public use. If they wanted a meal, those students had to be led off by the people who accompanied them as their guides. There should be more facilities in the House for such people, and an opportunity to book a suitable room in advance.

I know that such matters are being considered by a committee, which is awaiting the completion of the building in Westminster Bridge road--but that is a long time away. It should be possible to provide suitable accommodation in the House, bearing in mind the lavish facilities that are available in the House of Lords, and which are mostly under-used by members of another place. There is also a proposal to provide MEPs with facilities within the House, but surely the needs of disabled constituents, for example, should receive priority.

I know that you cannot make a decision alone, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I trust that you will add your weight to bringing pressure on the administration to speed up matters. It is less than adequate for so few facilities to be available to our visitors.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Having not only met members of his visiting party this morning, but taken around pupils from Donaldson's school for the deaf and others, I know that the problem he mentions is one faced by all right hon. and hon. Members. Most of us find ourselves hosting a party of handicapped persons at some time or another, and better facilities should be provided.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the proposal to provide facilities for MEPs. It is a fact that the Leader of the House is considering proposals to extend federalism into the House. MEPs will be allowed to use its facilities, and will be found rooms at a time when, as my hon. Friend says, he is campaigning along with many other hon. Members for proper meal and other facilities for constituents on visits to Parliament. It is high time that the Lord President was told by Mr. Speaker that he should make sure that, instead of allowing people from the Common Market to come here willy-nilly, priority should be given to our constituents. It says something about our society when the Government are more concerned with setting up avocado soup kitchens for distressed Lloyd's members than they are about people from Bolsover.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. As hon. Members have said, the matter is now being considered by the Services Committee, and I can suggest only that hon. Members may wish to draw to the Committee's attention the incidents that occurred today.

Column 311

Orders of the Day

Planning and Compensation Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 20

Status of Development Plans (No.

1 )--

. At the end of Part II of the principal Act there is inserted "Chapter III

--General

-- Status of development plans.

54A. Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise".'.-- [Sir George Young]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.40 pm

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 21-- Status of development plans (No. 2).

Sir George Young : The purpose of new clause 20 is to fulfil the commitment that I gave to the House on 16 May when we debated new clause 13. New clause 21 makes equivalent provision for Scotland. New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), was designed to enhance the status of the development plan in the decision-making process-- specifically when the planning authority deals with an application for planning permission under section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In responding to the substantial debate on 16 May, I said that we were prepared to concede new clause 13, subject to correcting some defects in it. Our decision to make that concession was widely welcomed. Indeed, no less a body than the Council for the Protection of Rural England hailed it as a "historic promise", strengthening

"the whole basis of the planning system"

and moving forward to a

"new era".

In the event, we did not reach a vote on the new clause. That has given the Government the opportunity to table our own new clauses, which achieve the basic objective of new clause 13 but without the defects.

Our new clauses make clear what having regard to the development plan means --not just in section 70(2) of the 1990 Act, but in all places where the planning Acts require regard to be had to development plans. In future, it will mean that the determination is to be in accordance with the plan, unless other considerations indicate otherwise.

That would make clear to local planning authorities and others how to go about making the decision. If the development plan has something to say on a particular application, the starting point would be that the plan should be followed unless the weight of the other

Column 312

considerations tell against it. In other words, there would be a presumption in favour of the development plan. But it would still allow appropriate weight to be given to all other material considerations.

One material consideration would, of course, be the extent to which the development plan was up to date. Clearly, if the development plan is to carry its full weight it needs to be up to date and consistent with national and regional policies as well as relevant to the proposal in question.

The Government have tried to be helpful, and if the House accepts new clauses 20 and 21 there will be no need to move new clause 13 and no need for us to table amendments to it in another place. I commend the new clauses to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith) : I am delighted to welcome new clause 20. It has been described as by far the most significant concession that the Government have made on the Bill in either of the Houses of Parliament. It gives force to the Minister's statement on Second Reading that he wanted development to be plan-led rather than market-led. I have taunted him about that, but I must withdraw my taunt now, because this concession shows that the plan now has an important status in determining development outcomes.

When we tabled new clause 13--which, as the Minister said, was the parent of new clause 20--I did not expect that such a concession would be made. The Minister has gone further than we expected, and it would be churlish of me not to put on record our gratitude for the Government's move. It will be welcomed not only by the Labour party but by many Conservative Members and many outside organisations. The new clause will enable local authorities to plan more sensibly and effectively for their areas. It deals with problems that have been caused to planning authorities and developers in both the north and south of England. A major step forward has been taken. That is a good start to today's debate, and I welcome it. I shall not persist with new clause 13.

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : Will my hon. Friend be sending out a direction to the planning inspectorate with a definition and explanation of the phrase "material considerations", so that the inspector has an idea what the Government have in mind and does not let his imagination loose on what could constitute other material considerations?

Sir George Young : I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's question, but the notion of "material considerations" is not new. It already appears in planning legislation, so I suspect that there may be no need to redefine exactly what it covers. I shall think about what my hon. Friend has said and decide whether fresh guidance is required for my planning inspectors in order to clarify the Government's policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Status of development plans (No. 2)

At the end of Part II of the 1972 Act (development plans) there is inserted --

Column 313

"General

Status of development plans.

18A.--Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.".'.-- [Sir George Young.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

Agricultural buildings

--After section 59(3) of the principal Act (Development orders) there is inserted--

"(4) No development order may grant permission for the erection of a building for the purposes of agriculture.'."-- [Mr. Win Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 pm

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18-- Agricultural buildings (No. 2)--

Planning Permission shall be required for the erection of a building for the purposes of agriculture in specially designated conservation areas including national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, heritage coastline, marine nature reserves, conservation areas and any other areas of special landscape value identified by local authorities.'.

New clause 19-- Planning control over agricultural and forestry roads--

After section 59(3) of the principal Act (Development orders) there is inserted :

"(4) No development order shall grant permission for the formation of a private way for the purposes of agriculture or forestry.".'.

Mr. Griffiths : Quite a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since we last considered the Bill. I am a new Member of the House, having been elected at the previous general election--I had hoped that I would have been re-elected by now, but things have happened to put off the next general election. As a new Member, I was intrigued by the Government's failure on 16 May, the day of the Monmouth by-election, to move the business motion on the Order Paper to continue and complete business on the Bill on that day. I checked to find out how often that had happened in the past decade, and I could find only three other examples. On two of those occasions the business was considered the next day, as the previous evening's motion suggested, and on the other occasion the business was considered immediately after the weekend. This time, however, we have had a five-week wait.

In some ways we have benefited from having had to wait, because in the meantime the Government have made significant concessions. The most important of those was embodied in new clause 20, but there have also been some concessions in relation to the new clauses on agricultural and forestry buildings and roads--the subject of our new clauses.

We welcome the further Government concessions on special exemptions from full planning control of agricultural and forestry buildings and roads, which have long been the cause of one of the great anomalies in the planning system. Although I welcome the Government's attempt to take account of the anomaly, I must still say that it does not go far enough. We

Column 314

believe that the only satisfactory solution is that embodied in our new clauses--that agricultural and forestry buildings and roads should be the subject of proper planning approvals.

The present situation is unsatisfactory. I shall cite two examples from my constituency to illustrate the problems. One example relates to my own village of Cefn Cribwr. The village runs for a mile or so along the top of a ridge, so that from almost every house in the village there is a magnificent view of the surrounding countryside. I am talking in this case about the view from the common, by the Wesleyan Methodist church, towards Margam park, the mountains and the Llynfi and Afan valleys. It is an absolutely magnificent view--one of the best that one could wish to find anywhere in the world. Recently, a local farmer was able to put up a building for agricultural purposes which, to all intents and purposes, blocked the view enjoyed by a number of people. Right next to the site of that building there is a waterworks holding water for the village of Cefn Cribwr. The farmer could easily have placed the building below the waterworks without affecting the visual amenity enjoyed by anybody. The farmer claims that the planning authority said that the place that he had chosen was perfectly all right and that the building would offend nobody, although the planning authority vigorously denied that it had ever made such a recommendation in its discussions with him. Because the building was not subject to any proper planning procedure, the farmer was able to site it in such a way that it is severely detrimental to the visual amenity enjoyed by those living in Cefn Cribwr.

My second example concerns the laying of agricultural roads, sometimes to the anger of many in my constituency of Bridgend. I shall cite only one case although, on several occasions in the few years for which I have been the Member of Parliament for Bridgend, the actions of Mr. Boland, the estate manager in question, have caused consternation and anger to those living in and around the community of Penyfai. On just about every occasion, it has been found that he has acted within the law--or, rather, right up against the edge of the law--so that it has been very difficult for the planning authority to act. A matter of weeks ago, he built a new road. So large were the mounds of earth and so extensive were the works being undertaken that it looked as though a motorway was under construction. It is generally agreed that the agricultural purpose of the road is very difficult to define, although no doubt when pressed by the local planning authority, Ogwr borough council, Mr. Boland will produce an explanation of the road's agricultural purpose ; indeed, he has probably already done so. Nobody in the community can see what that purpose is. If that road had been subject to proper planning procedures, there would have been an opportunity for its true use to be estimated and for the planning authority to make a real decision about whether it should be approved or not. As it is, the planning authority has no power to do that, and it would not have such power even under the Government's concessions.

I appeal to the Government to reconsider the concessions that they have made and consider some means--without the need to introduce primary legislation--by which the notification to local authorities of new buildings

Next Section

Home Page