House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Oct 1991

Mr. Baker : I hear what my hon. Friend has said. Let me say at once that I am not unsympathetic to that. The law on trespass on land is immensely complicated. Clearly many hon. Members of all parties have said, not only today but repeatedly, that the law on gipsies is unsatisfactory. As I have said, I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that it will not only be beneficial to the owners of property in which a squat is taking place, but will be widely welcomed by the neightbours on each side of such properties? Their lives have often been made absolute hell as a result of squats. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the statement should be widely welcomed in the appallingly ill-managed London boroughs of Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark, which account for 65 per cent. of the present squats in London?

Mr. Baker : I am quite sure that the statement will be welcomed in those three boroughs, and it is badly needed in those three boroughs. However, it will also be welcomed in constituencies such as my hon. Friend's because squatting is very anti-social and can disturb the neighbourhood and the street. The neighbours of a squat can be just as angry as the person who is deprived of his home.

Mr. Chris Butler (Warrington, South) : May I re-emphasise to my right hon. Friend that revised police guidance will not be enough to control the nuisance of itinerants? In Warrington, we have, not a temporary, but a permanent nuisance. It takes a long time to move such people on, they leave a lot of squalor behind them, and they move just a mile up the road.

Column 164

Mr. Baker : I hear what my hon. Friend has said, and I repeat what I have said in reply to other colleagues this afternoon.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement today will be welcomed, but that what will really be welcomed is, at the end of the consultation exercise, a robust and effective use of the criminal law, unlike section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986? Avon has decided not to use that section and, consequently, those who are really affected--not the landowner, but the people who live around the land that is being squatted on--have misery, degradation, dirt, squalor and crime on their doorsteps.

Mr. Baker : I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole thrust of the proposals that I have brought to the House this afternoon is to extend the criminal law in the areas that I have described. I hear what he says on the other matters.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : My right hon. Friend obviously understands that, in seaside economies, there is a lot of empty property during the winter. Will the Bill, when it is brought before the House, address two specific points?

First, the citizen expects the police to be able to act and the police are frustrated because they cannot do so. That leads to a general deterioration in respect for the local police. Secondly, Mr. Christopher Cox, whose case has been drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention, has been the victim on the Isle of Wight of a criminal gang who go round squatting in premises and using blackmail. They ask for up to £2,000 to vacate the property. That is becoming a thoroughgoing racket, and I believe that it is prevalent not only on the Isle of Wight but throughout the south coast. It must be stopped.

Mr. Baker : On my hon. Friend's second point, I suspect that it is already a criminal offence. On the first point, I agree entirely that the whole thrust of my proposals is to give a role to the police in dealing with the matter because at the moment they are frustrated. They are often called to a squat and can do nothing about it because of the limitations of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The proposals that I have put before the House today will change that.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Does the Home Secretary agree that squatters want a free ride, and that they do not wish to pay rent to anybody or to pay community charge to anybody? If it is unlawful to break and enter and to take charge of a motor vehicle, it must be unlawful to break and enter and to take charge of somebody's dwelling. On travellers, let us have a revision of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 by the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Baker : I am glad that my hon. Friend stopped short of the advice that he gave me at the Tory party conference to deal with the matter. I can assure him that he will not be disappointed by the robustness of the proposals as they are carried through and developed in the next few months.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) rose --

Mr. Speaker : Was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement?

Column 165

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I have been here since 2.30 pm, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : But was the hon. Gentleman here for the statement? Did he hear the statement?

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I have been here since 2.30 pm, Sir.

Mr. Speaker : Did the hon. Gentleman hear the statement? That is what I am asking. Did he hear it or did he not?

Mr. Campbell-Savours : As I explained, Mr. Speaker, I have been here since 2.30 pm.

Mr. Speaker : That seems a pretty qualified response, but I shall call the hon. Gentleman nevertheless.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : There was no qualification in my response, Mr. Speaker. I have been here throughout, and I was here for the statement.

May I ask the Home Secretary a simple question? Has there been an increase in squatting in private residential property in recent years?

Mr. Baker : May I first confirm that the hon. Gentleman was here during my statement--indeed, he was squatting there throughout. The question of numbers is dealt with in the consultation document and, according to one estimate, there could be as many as 50,000 illegal squatters at the moment.

Mr. Speaker : Perhaps I should have phrased my question in the hon. Gentleman's own words. I should have asked him, "Yes or No?"

Column 166

Local Government (Scotland)

4.21 pm

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to local government organisation in Scotland.

My Bill would amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and so put right the injustice done to part of my constituency when that Act was passed.

The history is quite clear. In 1975 the communities of Cambuslang and Rutherglen, formerly governed by the district council of Lanark and the town council of the royal borough of Rutherglen, campaigned for a district council for Cambuslang and Rutherglen, but their campaign was unsuccessful. The communities were incorporated into the Glasgow district council area under measures implemented in 1975. It must be said that, 16 years later, the move is not regarded as a success in Cambuslang and Rutherglen.

The councils that administered the areas previously were quite successful. They reflected the interests of the community and were regarded highly by the people of the areas. Both communities feel that, since reorganisation, they have suffered a loss of identity. They now come under a much larger council than they were used to before. It may not be a very palatable fact, but it is clearly the case that the people in the areas are used to smaller, more responsive councils--councils that they feel they can influence on a daily basis without being lost in a giant bureaucracy.

We are asking for a district council because we believe that certain services are basic to people's daily lives. For instance, issues affecting housing repairs, and especially housing allocation, are of great importance locally. There are stable communities in the two areas, but when young people are of an age to get married and set up house, they are obliged to accept offers of housing all over the Glasgow district council area rather than within reach of their families as was previously the case.

This is probably the best time to make the point that the campaign and the Bill are not aimed at Glasgow district council. The Bill is not anti- Glasgow, and it is certainly not anti-Glasgow people. I wish to make that absolutely plain because I have the privilege and honour to represent the Glasgow people of Castlemilk, East and Toryglen, and they are the salt of the earth. The Bill is pro-Cambuslang and Rutherglen and, for the life of me, I do not see how anyone can interpret that, of necessity, as being anti -Glasgow.

I will willingly deal with the question of viability. I accept that, in the modern age, and to meet modern needs and demands, a council must be viable. It must also be able to provide the level of services that people are entitled to expect. It must be emphasised, however, that the size of the electorate of Cambuslang and Rutherglen is similar to, or larger than, that of many existing district councils within Strathclyde, including Clydebank, Clydesdale, Eastwood, Bearsden and Milngavie and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. I am prepared to listen to debates about the principle of setting up a district council but I am not prepared to accept any criticism on the ground of viability. All the areas that I cited are doing reasonably successfully and there is no reason why the part of my constituency with which the Bill deals should not do likewise.

Column 167

It is important to stress that we are talking about a district council. We make no attempt to claim that an area of our size, on its own, could run successfully regional council functions such as the police, fire, transport and strategic physical planning. We are after district council services.

A campaign for a local council has been set up over the past two months and 25,000 leaflets have been distributed. People have been on the main streets in the part of the constituency concerned. A series of public meetings have been held and so far the aggregate total of people attending those meetings is more than 2,500. In these days when we try to get people to attend public meetings, it is an outstanding success to achieve such attendances at meetings and it shows the level of support in the area for the campaign. We are also running a parliamentary petition and I expect more than 15,000 signatures to be gathered. I intend to present the petition to the House some time next month.

We also accept that there is a case for a city council or city authority as people on the periphery enter the city and avail themselves of the city's activities, namely, cultural activities. The rate support grant or amount of Government support--no matter what it is called--is gathered from central taxation and income tax and VAT. It is wrong to say that people outwith cities do not contribute to the budget of city councils. As taxpayers, we all contribute and people in surrounding areas contribute to cities. It would be better if people who disagreed with that produced facts and figures instead of deriding the other point of view.

We believe that in our area a district council would be more accountable and responsive to people's needs. There would be better control for the public to ensure that the services delivered by the council were more efficient and cost effective. The communities of Cambuslang and Rutherglen have traditions which date back hundreds of

Column 168

years. They have a community spirit which councils and Governments are spending millions of pounds trying to create. We already have that community spirit.

I am not looking at those areas through rose-tinted glasses. Previous councils made mistakes, but on balance they did more good things than bad. I am prepared to argue that if we achieve a district council for Cambuslang and Rutherglen, it would make mistakes and do good things and bad things, but, most importantly, the communities in those two areas would readily identify on a community basis with a district council of Cambuslang and Rutherglen.

We are convinced that we can take the best of our traditions forward and build on them and ensure that we have a council that can deliver services effectively and, most importantly, one that is accountable to local people.

The purpose of the Bill is to create a 20th district council--a Cambuslang and Rutherglen district council--with Strathclyde regional council.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. George Robertson, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mrs. Irene Adams and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

Local Government (Scotland)

Mr. Thomas McAvoy accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to local government organisation in Scotland : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 October and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,

That European Community Document No. 5577/91, relating to the European Coal and Steel Community, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Column 169

Points of Order

4.28 pm

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Speaker : I cannot hear the hon. Member's motion. He has not submitted it to me. I must have a motion submitted to me by 12 noon.

Mr. Thurnham : My constituents have been--

Mr. Speaker : Is it the same application about which the hon. Member has been to see me?

Mr. Thurnham : Indeed. I had a meeting with the chairman of the health authority today and he thoroughly refutes allegations about cancellations of operations in the north-west.

Mr. Speaker : But I must have the motion submitted to me. I cannot take it without notice. We must move on.

Mr. Thurnham rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman came to see me. I will not say what discussions passed between us, but he knows that I must have such applications by noon. I cannot hear his application without having seen it.

Mr. Thurnham : I submitted my application before noon.

Mr. Speaker : I told the hon. Gentleman when he came to see me that his application was out of order. I cannot accept another one unless I have seen it.

Mr. Thurnham : Since seeing you, Mr. Speaker, I have consulted "Erskine May".

Column 170

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman may have done so, but he has not consulted me, and that is important.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear that the brilliance of the lamps that were introduced for the convenience of the television transmitters has been increased since we last met. Are you aware that it is now really quite uncomfortable to try to maintain a view of the Conservative Benches, not only because of the composition but because of the brilliance of the lights? Will it be possible to have them turned down while live transmissions of the House are not going on? If not, some of us will have to contemplate wearing dark glasses in this place.

Mr. Speaker : I came to see the new lights when they were put up, and I actually took the precaution of sitting in the hon. Gentleman's seat to see whether they might possibly distract him. I came to the conclusion that they were not troublesome to hon. Members sitting on the Back Benches. We must now move on.

Mr. Thurnham : Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : I must say to the hon. Gentleman quite bluntly that I am sorry but I am not hearing his point of order.

Mr. Thurnham : May I refer you to--

Mr. Speaker : No. I cannot hear the motion today.

Column 171

Orders of the Day

Defence

[Second Day]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [14 October] :

That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 contained in Cm 1559.-- [Mr. Tom King.]

Which amendment was : to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :

welcomes the continuing improvement in East-West relations and the development of NATO and the CSCE to accommodate these changes ; recognises the opportunities now available for further reductions in defence expenditure ; calls for the maximum co-operation with the United Kingdom's European partners to re-examine the roles and commitments of the armed forces ; welcomes the successful negotiation of the START Treaty ; calls on the Government to seek the establishment of further talks on strategic nuclear disarmament and then to secure British participation in such discussions ; and urges the Government to provide assistance for defence industry diversification and expand the provision for re-training and re- housing ex-service personnel'. [Mr. O'Neill.]

Question again proposed That the amendment be made.

Mr. Speaker : I hope that I may be able to call more hon. Members in this important debate. No fewer than 44 hon. Members have written in and hope to be called today. I therefore propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock. I hope that those who are called before and after that time will bear the limit in mind.

4.32 pm

Mr. John Browne (Winchester :) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night you witnessed about 500,000 signatures being presented to the House before the Adjournment debate. They reflect just the tip of the iceberg and the very deep feeling that the Government have got the defence cuts wrong.

Mr. Speaker : Order. That is a matter of argument ; it is not a matter of order.

Mr. Browne rose--

Mr. Speaker : I know what the hon. Member is seeking to do. I called the hon. Member in the debate in July. I say to him and to the other hon. Members who were called in that debate in July, which was on the same subject, that I cannot, in all fairness to their colleagues, call them again today.

Mr. Browne : That was not my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that and I accept that, although I have tabled an amendment, I will not be called. I accept that. The amendment that you have chosen comes from a position of less integrated defence, whereas the great feeling in this country is that there should be sufficient defence to be sure that we do not have a return to the high-risk defence policy of the 1930s. Would you please reconsider your decision to accept other amendments which demand less high-risk defence than the Government are offering ?

Column 172

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has been here quite a long time now. He should know that my hands are tied. I can select only one amendment other than in a debate on the Queen's Speech and this is not the Queen's Speech.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just said that you have received 44 requests to take part in the debate. [Interruption.] I have perhaps ruined my chances, but is it possible to bring forward to 5 o'clock the time at which speeches can take just 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker : That can be done only informally. I hope that the Front-Bench spokesmen--I do not know whether they can keep to 10 minutes-- will be brief and that other hon. Members will bear that limit in mind.

4.34 pm

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the changes in the international political and military climate since we last debated this subject. But against the theme of ever more harmonious relations between east and west, there remains the risk of destabilising conflict in the third world--and closer to home. We have taken careful account of this in reaching decisions on restructuring our armed forces and I should like to address some of the implications of these decisions for the equipment programme. I shall also respond to some of the points that were raised last night about the size and shape of the Army and shall also refer to the important subject of defence research and development in the future. First, the United States and Soviet statements that they are prepared to reduce their nuclear arsenals--welcome though they are--do not affect our own intention to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent as the cornerstone of our defence. But as the immediate threat of nuclear confrontation recedes, public attention in the western democracies has increasingly and quite rightly begun to look on the safety and security of the weapons. Last year a major review of nuclear weapon safety in the United States was carried out by Dr. Sidney Drell. In the United Kingdom, we have every reason to be confident that our stringent safety standards, exhaustive trials, and continuous review and independent scrutiny ensure the safety of our weapons. Indeed, Dr. Drell recommended certain of our arrangements as a model for the United States to follow. But I have nevertheless invited the Department's chief scientific adviser to lead a small working group to examine the safety of United Kingdom nuclear weapons. The group includes a number of distinguished experts drawn from both inside and outside government. They have already started work and have been asked to report by the end of the year. Although their report will, inevitably, be classified, we shall make public a statement of its conclusions.

In the field of conventional naval equipment, we intend to maintain the Royal Navy's lead in anti-submarine warfare capability. We have announced the award of the prime contract for Merlin, the anti-submarine warfare variant of the EH101, which will replace the Navy's Sea King helicopters. Three of the new Duke class type 23s are already in service. Seven more are currently on order. Invitations to tender for up to three more type 23s were

Column 173

announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) in June, and a further announcement on this will be made in the spring.

The three aircraft carriers will be retained. Their Sea Harriers and Sea Dart missiles provide a powerful air defence to complement the ASW capability provided by their helicopters. We have begun studies into an anti-air warfare frigate to replace the type 42 destroyers.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East) : I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and will be brief. Is he now satisfied that the command and control system for the type 23 frigate will fully integrate all the weapons systems for that ship, or are there still worries on that score?

Mr. Clark : It is absolutely essential that the integration is complete and, because they are inseparable systems, that it applies to the Merlin EH101 helicopter. As my hon. Friend knows, the whole point of the contract negotiations to establish a prime contractor for the Merlin project was that the prime contractor should be completely responsible for the integration and effectiveness of the system. I am satisfied that he is bound to that by the contract.

Dr. Godman : With regard to the contract or contracts for the three type 23 frigates which I believe that the Minister said would be announced in the spring, may I point out that it would make very good sense for those vessel orders to be given to Yarrow on the upper Clyde? That shipyard employs hundreds of my constituents and is in dire straits.

Mr. Clark : I am a little reluctant to give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because so many hon. Members wish to speak. It is unfair of hon. Members to make interventions such as that, which simply made a constituency plug, instead of making a positive contribution to the scale and nature of the debate.

The House will recall that we envisage a submarine fleet of about 16 boats, about three quarters of which will be nuclear powered. We are evaluating designs for a new class of nuclear-powered submarines--based on the Trafalgar but incorporating the latest enhancements in combat systems. The last of the current Trafalgar boats, HMS Triumph, is due to enter service this year. A new class of conventional submarines, the Upholder, is also being introduced to replace the Oberon class. The first, HMS Upholder, is already in service, to be joined soon by HMS Unseen ; two further vessels are under construction.

As the Army reduces in size over the coming years, we will be phasing out older equipment wherever possible, and introducing a higher proportion of newer and more capable systems.

In June, I announced that our two remaining regiments of aging Chieftain tanks will be re-equipped with Challenger 2. The Challenger 1s will be the subject of an extensive upgrade, including the fitting of a new, more powerful gun. Within four years every armoured infantry battalion will be equipped with the Warrior fighting vehicle which proved so capable in the Gulf. We will be providing three artillery regiments with the multiple launch rocket system and all other front-line self-propelled artillery units will be given the AS90 155mm howitzer which will provide a 30 per cent. improvement in range.

Column 174

Short-range air defence will be enhanced by the introduction of the Starstreak high-velocity missile. Starstreak's laser guidance system should make it almost invulnerable to counter- measures. In addition, the new Rapier field standard C will provide the capability to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Both of these systems are nearing the end of development.

The Army's anti-tank capability will be further enhanced towards the end of the decade when we plan to introduce a dedicated attack helicopter to replace Lynx in the anti-armour role.

Next Section

Home Page