House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Nov 1991

Column 1229

Lockerbie

3.22 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make statement about the Lockerbie investigation and its implications. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has today announced the issue of warrants for the arrest of two Libyan intelligence officers against whom, on the basis of the evidence available, the Procurator Fiscal has brought charges alleging their involvement in the descruction of Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December 1988. The American authorities have taken similar action. The text of the warrant and of the Lord Advocate's announcement are being placed in the Library of the House.

Two hundred and seventy people were killed at Lockerbie. The relatives and friends of those victims have suffered and continue to suffer great pain and sorrow and the House will be thinking of them today. As the Lord Advocate has said, a demand is being made of the Libyan authorities for the surrender of the accused to stand trial. I repeat that demand on behalf of the whole Government and I know that the House will unreservedly endorse it.

The accusations levelled at Libyan officials are of the gravest possible kind. As the warrants which the Lord Advocate will be making public make clear, the charges allege that the individuals acted as a part of a conspiracy to further the purposes of the Libyan intelligence services by criminal means and that those means were acts of terrorism. This was a mass murder which is alleged to involve the organs of government of a state. Libyan officials have been accused of such a crime, not only in Scotland and America, but in France where arrest warrants were issued on 30 October over the destruction of flight UTA 772 in September 1989. We are consulting the United States and other friendly Governments, many of whom lost nationals in Pan Am flight 103, about the next steps.

I understand that the investigation has revealed no evidence to support the suggestion of involvement by other countries. I pay tribute to all those whose untiring work under the direction of the Lord Advocate over almost three years has produced this remarkable outcome. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and all those in many parts of the world who have helped with the gathering of evidence and information. We are grateful for all the help given to the investigation in many countries.

We expect Libya to respond fully to our demand for the surrender of the accused. The interests of justice require no less. This was a fiendish act of wickedness and it cannot be passed over or ignored.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and I join him in congratulating the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and all other law enforcement agencies and forensic experts, both here and in other countries, whose dogged work, obviously of great brilliance, has resulted in the successful outcome of the investigation.

Nothing can ever console those bereaved by that atrocious act of terrorist mass murder for the loss of their loved ones. However, they may be reassured to know that not for one day have the police rested in their

Column 1230

determination to bring the perpetrators to justice. I note that the investigation continues. Have we learnt all that we can learn and implemented all appropriate recommendations--such as reconciling baggage tags with passenger lists--emerging from that terrible tragedy?

The Libyans have for some time been sending signals that they wish to resume relations. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a test of their sincerity will be whether they deliver to the forces of law and order the men for whom warrants of arrest have been issued? If Libyan protestations of non-involvement in that terrorist act are true, they have nothing to fear from a fair trial. If they do not hand over those men for trial, we shall all know what conclusions to draw. In those circumstances, we shall have to consider what action to take in accordance with international law. For Libya can be received back into the world community only when it is clear beyond doubt that it is no longer involved in instigating, assisting and carrying out acts of terrorism that sicken the civilised world.

Mr. Hurd : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly, as he says, the investigation continues, and one cannot be certain that other evidence may not come to light. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his predecessor have kept the House informed of developments in aviation security since the disaster. The right hon. Gentleman referred to professions which have been repeated over and over again by Ministers and others of the Libyan Government, that they have turned their backs on terrorism and are now opposed to it. I have warned my colleagues in Europe and elsewhere to be very reserved and cautious about such professions. The right hon. Gentleman set a test with which I would agree. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but did not press me on, action which might follow. The House will not expect me to go further than I have today. We are following a course of law. There has been an independent investigation and a decision to issue warrants against two individuals. The next step is to require the handing over of those individuals for trial. Other steps may have to follow, but they are not for today.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : May I add my praise of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, in particular the chief constable, Gordon Esson, and detective chief superintendent Stewart Henderson and his team who led the investigation, and also the Lord Advocate and his team for their tremendous support for the police in Dumfries and Galloway?

The people of Lockerbie have welcomed among them the relatives of the 270 who lost their lives in the town. They hope that today's announcement will go some way to easing the sorrow and the memory of those who died in the disaster. The feel that the best result is to bring those murderers to justice. I know that my right hon. Friend will do his very best to do that.

Mr. Hurd : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has represented the people of Lockerbie through this period of anxiety and, for some of them, torment with great dignity and perseverance. I am sure that he is right in his conclusion.

Sir David Steel (Tweddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : In addition to the well-deserved tributes that he has paid to

Column 1231

the local people, will the Foreign Secretary also recognise the work that was carried out by Army units and other voluntary organisations, such as the mountain rescue teams, which had the anguished task of collecting the human and material remains of flight 103, which enabled the evidence to be pieced together and thus led to the charges that have been brought today? If need be, will he contemplate the possibility of going to the United Nations Security Council to press for the transfer to justice of the alleged perpetrators of that uniquely terrible international crime?

Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Gentleman is right on his first point, and I add to his words of thanks. For the reason that I have already given, I should rather not be carried further on the consequential steps today. We do not need to use an intermediary to make the demand that has been made by ourselves and the United States. We can do that direct to the Libyans, and that is what we are doing.

Sir John Farr (Harborough) : What steps have been taken towards identifying the explosive that was used? Was it Semtex, and if so, what co- operation have we received from Czechoslovakia in terms of giving Semtex and other modern plastic explosives an identifying character, which the previous Czechoslovak Government refused to do?

Mr. Hurd : I should rather not be drawn into describing the evidence in any particulars. As I have said, my hon. Friend can find the Lord Advocate's announcement in the Library. For obvious legal reasons, I should rather not paraphrase it or embroider on it. My hon. Friend asked a perfectly reasonable consequential question. For some time now, we have been in touch with the Czechoslovak authorities about the production and distribution of Semtex and especially about finding a means of identifying particular batches. Those discussions continue.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : What obligations does the Foreign Secretary think that he has towards the British community of about 5, 000 engineers and other workers who are working for Brown Root, Sir Alexander Gibb and partners and 36 other British companies which are involved in the great man-made river project? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that my colleagues and I who went to Libya, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), were assured vehemently--I do not want to be naive about this and can only report back that we were assured vehemently--that Libya was not responsible for the terrible thing that happened at Lockerbie? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore proceed with the greatest caution, remembering that it is far from clear that the Libyans were responsible for the tragedy of the 1986 bombings and that that responsibility might lie elsewhere, perhaps in Syria?

Mr. Hurd : We are proceeding with care. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at what is available in the Library and that he will study it with care in the light of what he heard in Libya to the contrary effect. The hon. Gentleman referred perfectly reasonably to the fact that we have about 5,500 British nationals in Libya. The hon. Gentleman gave the figure correctly. There is no immediate threat, but we shall obviously need to watch the position in that country very carefully. All the British nationals there know that, in the absence of direct diplomatic relations, the scope for consular protection is,

Column 1232

in practice, limited, but they should--and no doubt will--keep in close touch with the British interests section of the Italian embassy there.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : In fairness to the Governments of Iran and Syria, with whom we have diplomatic relations, and in view of his comment about there being no involvement from other countries, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the widespread and detailed reports that the job was commissioned by the Government of Iran from Syrian nationals, who were seized, and was then subcontracted to individuals in Libya, are wholly untrue? In view of the publication of those widespread and detailed reports, and in fairness to our friends in Iran and Syria, does my right hon. Friend feel that he has a duty to make it abundantly clear that, following detailed research, he has discovered that those reports are simply untrue?

Mr. Hurd : The police investigation deals with evidence, not rumours. But it has taken a long time because several lines of inquiry had to be followed not by the Government but by the Scottish police--my hon. Friend will accept that. I deliberately put in that sentence that there was no evidence about the involvement of other Governments because of the consideration which my hon. Friend mentions. He mentioned one part of a line of inquiry. Members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine general command cell in Germany arrested in 1988 clearly had bomb -making equipment, some of which was superficially similar to the Lockerbie bomb. They may well have had plans to attack civil aviation which were derailed when the arrests were made. But the thorough inquiries along that line failed to reveal any direct link between that group and Lockerbie. There were notable differences--especially the timer--between the bombs in which they were involved in making and the Lockerbie bomb. Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. There is great pressure on business today. We have business questions after this and an important debate. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue for a further five minutes, after which we must move on.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : May I also send congratulations to the constabulary of Dumfries and Galloway? I understand the Secretary of State's reluctance to discuss the consequential steps that Her Majesty's Government may have to take if the Libyans are not forthcoming, but will he give an assurance that he is taking suitable precautions against the consequential measures which the Libyans might themselves adopt? I have no doubt that he recalls the last time that the Government assisted the United States Government in actions against state-sponsored terrorism from Libya. The Libyans retaliated by making substantial supplies of munitions for arms available to the IRA. Shipments came into Northern Ireland during the period when the Foreign Secretary was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, undoubtedly much to his embarrassment.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary will advise the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he has not already done so, that the co-operation that he is supposed to get from the Irish Republic in this matter is a broken reed.

Column 1233

Mr. Hurd : I do not want to be drawn on co- operation with the Irish Government. I informed the Irish Foreign Minister yesterday of the broad scope of the announcement that I intended to make today. The hon. Gentleman is right to this extent : in any steps decided on in consultation and concert with other friendly Governments we shall have to weigh carefully the consequences and precautions that need to follow.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : What is my right hon. Friend's estimate of the chances of the Libyan authorities responding favourably to the extradition request? If, as one must suspect, the chances are pretty low, does my right hon. Friend understand that the House will press him on what course of action the British Government intend to take? Can he at least say today that our Government have a firm and strong plan in mind, especially as we were somewhat weak in dealing with some of the Syrian terrorist episodes from official sources.

Mr. Hurd : I would rather not speculate in answer to my hon. Friend's point, but I note what he says. I am sure that the pressure of which he speaks will reflect strong public opinion.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if the perpetrators of this atrocity are eventually caught, no one will be happier than me? Does he agree that it is unwise to use words such as "success" at this stage and to hand out applause to the various parties involved before a fair trial in front of all the evidence has taken place?

Mr. Hurd : I think that, whatever happens hereafter, anyone who studies the documents in the Library or anyone who has followed the investigation will realise that it was a remarkable and complex investigation. That is what I have said.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington) : Under what legal authority were the warrants issued? Was it the domestic application of a multilateral convention? If so, is not that an excellent precedent for dealing with war crimes committed in Iraq and Yugoslavia?

Column 1234

Mr. Hurd : That is not really a question for me, but the warrants were clearly issued under Scottish law. It was a straightforward matter and the crimes committed were committed under Scottish law.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : I, too, congratulate the Scottish police force and its international colleagues on the excellent work that they have done. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest tribute that we can pay to the innocent victims is to ensure that the perpetrators of the crime are brought to justice? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly how that will be done? Will it be done through an international organisation such as the United Nations or will there be individual state action? Given the obvious Libyan involvement, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that there will be no diplomatic recognition of Libya while Gadaffi remains in power?

Mr. Hurd : I do not want to range wider than I have. A crime of mass murder has been committed. There has been an independent investigation, and as a result warrants have been issued against two individuals who are officials of the Libyan Government. We and the United States Government have asked that the two individuals be handed over. We have done that directly and there is no ambiguity about it. We await the response.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Later, after business questions.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : My point of order is on this matter.

Mr. Speaker : That does not matter. I will take the point of order later. That is the usual procedure.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : No, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is on this matter.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I shall take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order at the usual time.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : As a former Law Officer, why was I not called to ask a question about a prosecution in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker : I think that we shall have the business statement from the Leader of the House first.

Column 1235

Business of the House

3.51 pm

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : The business for next week will be as follows :

Monday 18 November----Second Reading of the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill

Tuesday 19 November----Second Reading of the Education (Schools) Bill

Wednesday 20 November and Thursday 21 November----Debate on the European Community on a Government motion

Friday 22 November----Debate on nuclear defence on a motion for the Adjournment of the House

Monday 25 November----Second Reading of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Motion on the Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock

The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 20 November, to consider documents Nos. 4173/91, 4174/91 and 4175/91 relating to copyright and neighbouring rights.

[Wednesday 20 November

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Documents

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-xii (1990-91) and HC 29-xviii (1990-91)].

Dr. Cunningham : When we debate the Education (Schools) Bill next week, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Education and Science publishes the report that he commissioned on the future of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools, which seems to have been suppressed by the Secretary of State? Is not this a clear example of the double standards of the Secretary of State for Education and Science? He introduces a Bill requiring schools to publish more information about their activities while he is suppressing information about the activities of his own Department. There could be no greater deception of the public and parents. When can we expect to see the terms of the motion that is to be debated next week on developments in the European Community? I hope that the Leader of the House recognises that it would be of interest and, no doubt, of benefit to all his right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as to the Opposition, to see the terms of the motion as soon as possible. In addition, it would be helpful if we could also know, and quickly, who will be speaking from the Government Front Bench during the two-day debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will quickly be able to help us with that information.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 136?

Column 1236

[That this House notes with deep concern the state of health care within the Parkside and Riverside health authorities which has prompted five consultants and 10 general practitioners to call for an inquiry into allegations that both authorities are failing to meet legal requirements on patient care ; and further urges the Government to conduct such an inquiry as a matter of great urgency.] As the right hon. Gentleman will see, the motion, which concerns the Parkside and Riverside health authorities, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Is the Leader of the House aware that doctors and consultants have alleged that those authorities are failing to meet their statutory duties in patient care because of a lack of resources? Is not this a serious state of affairs? Does not it cast great doubts on the efficacy of the Government's policies towards the health service? Will we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health next week about the two authorities?

Will it be possible to have a debate next week on electoral reform in the Conservative party? Has the Leader of the House seen the quotes in newspapers today about his colleagues behaving as if they were "rooms full of imbeciles", to quote the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)? What about the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who had to climb on to the table to get his ballot paper? After all that the Government have had to say about the conduct of elections and ballots in trade unions, is not it shameful that they cannot even guarantee one person one vote in their own party?

Mr. MacGregor : On the hon. Gentleman's question about the Education (Schools) Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made it clear in the House on 6 June that the review of HMI, to which reference was made in a newspaper this morning, was internal advice to Ministers, and that he did not intend to publish it. It is for Ministers to make up their minds on any internal advice from Departments, and there is often a great deal of it from different areas within Departments. My right hon. and learned Friend has made his decisions clear. He has informed the House about a number of relevant facts and about other matters that follow from those decisions, and I have no doubt that he will do so again in the debate next week. The Government will be making the position absolutely clear.

Dr. Cunningham : But not publishing the report.

Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. and learned Friend will make his position on the decisions that he made absolutely clear, and he will fully report to Parliament on them.

On the question about the European debate next week, I confirm that, because of the great importance of the matter and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the extensive interest in it not only in the House but elsewhere, we are arranging for the motion to be published tomorrow. The House will be able to consider the terms of the motion well in advance of the debate.

Dr. Cunningham : What about the Government's speakers?

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to consider such matters. I shall, in the usual way, inform the Opposition and others about who those speakers will be.

Column 1237

The hon. Gentleman requested a statement on the Parkside and Riverside health authorities. I do not think that that is necessary, because the facts are clear. Indeed, those facts dispute a great number of the allegations. More money is spent in Riverside and Parkside districts than anywhere else in the North West Thames region. This year, patient care activity at Parkside is likely to be up 30 per cent. on last year. Riverside is carrying out routine elective surgery and waiting lists are falling. No less than £206 million is being invested in the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital, which will be the most modern teaching hospital in the country. In view of those facts and that statement, I do not think that a further statement is necessary.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to a certain election, in which there was a great deal of interest. Under our rules it is for the outgoing chairman and his committee to decide how the election is conducted.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : Following the statement of our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the relative benefits of the investigative and prosecuting services in England and Scotland? As the investigation has resulted in an announcement--although our right hon. Friend was shady in saying so--[ Hon. Members-- : "Shady?"] Our right hon. Friend was cautious in saying that the investigation has resulted in charges of the murder of 260 people, conspiracy to murder, and various statutory contraventions of aviation legislation. As that is due alone to the particular characteristics of the investigative, prosecuting, criminal and corroborative services in Scotland, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate, just as a reminder that when those who are accused are convicted, if found guilty, they will not thereafter get away with it as they do in England, thanks to the rottenness of English law?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. and learned Friend paid tribute to the work of the investigating authorities in this case and he has made his point about the Scottish authorities. I do not think that it is necessary to have a debate and I do not want to enter into the issue now.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : Following the clear precedent set by the Secretary of State for Health with regard to expenses for the Cleveland inquiry, can we expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to make an announcement next week that he will give funding to the Orkney islands council to assist with the expenses being incurred there with regard to the judicial inquiry into events in South Ronaldsay rather than the whole burden falling on some 15,000 poll tax payers in Orkney ?

Before we debate the Education (Schools) Bill next week, can we be told whether the Government intend to withdraw the current Bill and issue a new one, because, as things stand at the moment, the section requiring information from schools in England and Wales applies to Scotland only and the section requiring information from schools in Scotland applies to England and Wales only ? Will there be a league table of Cabinet Ministers on their attention to detail ?

Column 1238

Mr. MacGregor : We have no intention of withdrawing the Bill, but I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall draw his first point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : My right hon. Friend has given the good news that we are to have a two-day debate on Europe next week, but will the announcement that we are to learn the terms of the motion tomorrow cause embarrassment on the Opposition Benches ? Given that they have changed their minds seven times on the principle of the EC, that may not give them enough time to change it again, or it might encourage them to incorporate in their amendment the views of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) as expressed in The Daily Telegraph earlier this week.

Mr. MacGregor : As I understand it, it is many more on the Opposition Benches than the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. I have no doubt that those points will be made in the debate. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large number of times that the Labour party has changed its policy on the issue. Ours has been clear for many years.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South) : Is the Leader of the House aware that, on average, one member of the armed forces dies on duty every week, some of them while training, but the Ministry of Defence refuses to disclose full details of the boards of inquiry, causing deep distress to the relatives who are entitled to the facts ? May we have a debate on that next week please ?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot promise a debate, but I should like to say something about it, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman has an early-day motion on the subject. We well understand and greatly sympathise with the grief and distress of the relatives of service men and women killed in the course of their duties. It is never the Ministry of Defence's intention to exacerbate that by withholding information on the circumstances surrounding the death. However, there are legitimate reasons why some documents, including boards of inquiry reports, must remain confidential to the Department. To assist bereaved relatives the MOD will always provide, on request, a statement summarising the board of inquiry report and will be as helpful as possible in answering any subsequent questions.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East) : I endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). My right hon. Friend will know that a constituent of mine, Simeon Ferrante, died on parachute training and during the two years since that date his father has been trying most energetically to get to the facts, not just to find out what happened to his son, but to ensure that a similar accident does not happen again. The problem with the board of inquiry is that there is no alternative way of testing the evidence and making clear whether the MOD has some faults to put right. It is essential that we have a debate so that the MOD understands that its policy of secrecy puts it always in the wrong.

Mr. MacGregor : I have given a fairly full answer to the question and I would simply say to my hon. Friend that, as he will know, there are ways in which he can pursue the

Column 1239

matter in the House. I will just repeat that the MOD endeavours to be as helpful as possible in answering any questions on individual cases.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : In view of the remarks made by the Leader of the House to the Committee studying the question of changing parliamentary hours, when he suggested that Members of Parliament should have only a four-day week, will the right hon. Gentleman have a few words within the next few minutes with the Secretary of State for Energy, and tell him to withdraw that section of the Coal Industry Bill that seeks to allocate a larger number of working hours--up to 48 hours a week--to miners? That shows the Government's hypocrisy, for they are prepared to recommend four-day weeks for Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers, but longer hours for miners working underground.

Mr. MacGregor : I am very surprised with the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has not read my comments to the Committee. I said that Members of Parliament also have substantial constituency functions to undertake, and Fridays and weekends are often the only times when right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies outside London can perform them. I was looking for ways in which, included within the very lengthy period that we spend in the House during the week--which is well beyond 48 hours--Members of Parliament could more easily attend in their constituencies during weekdays. I am sure that I speak for nearly every right hon. and hon. Member when I say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is misleading the public if he is suggesting that Members of Parliament would work only a four-day week if sometimes the House did not sit on Fridays.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is increasing support in the country for a national lottery? Will he arrange a debate on that subject--if not next week, then before Christmas--so that the views of the House may be heard?

Mr. MacGregor : I do not want to discourage my hon. Friend, but such a debate certainly cannot be arranged for next week and, as we have a great deal of business to complete before Christmas, I do not see much opportunity for a debate in Government time before then.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on early-day motion 137, which concerns the proposed closure of Westwood hospital?

[That this House notes that, shortly after this Government rubber stamped approval for the second hospital trust in Bradford, the trust announced closure proposals for Westwood Hospital for mentally handicapped people which will involve dumping patients into varying degrees of community care in order to sell off the land for residential development from this tranquil sheltered site which should be the basis for a village community for the mentally handicapped ; and recognises that instead patients will be treated like pawns by a group of trust managers who put profit and puffed up salaries before patients whilst riding roughshod over the wishes of relatives and patients alike in an act of betrayal towards the mentally handicapped, one of the most vulnerable sections of our community.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that second Bradford trust hospital was based on a false prospectus, because during the period of the application--which was

Column 1240

so eagerly rubber-stamped by the Government --no mention was made of the fact that the trusts would close a hospital for mentally handicapped people against the policy of the Department of Health, which encourages village communities for such people? Instead of the site in question being used to benefit the mentally handicapped, it will be sold off for residential development and the hospital will be closed--which will be a serious blow against the provisions for mentally handicapped people.

Mr. MacGregor : I looked into that matter, because the hon. Gentleman has raised it before. The Bradford project to which he refers long predates the establishment of the local NHS trust and is all about providing more homely community facilities for the people concerned. All the revenue from the sale will be reinvested in community services. The hon. Gentleman should support that project, rather than denigrate local efforts and mix them up with NHS trusts--which are, across the country, already demonstrating that they are a successful method of reforming the NHS--as is the case at Guy's.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : In view of the considerable constitutional implications of the outcome of the Maastricht summit, will my right hon. Friend consider devoting more time to debating developments in the European Community, so that all the views of Back Benchers can be expressed? If my right hon. Friend cannot devote more time to hearing the views of Back Benchers, how are the wishes of the British public to be adequately expressed?

Mr. MacGregor : We are allowing substantial time to enable the House to debate those matters, including a two-day debate next week. My hon. Friend will realise that I must bear in mind the very important business that the Government have to get through in the current Session, which will require many Second Reading debates before Christmas.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : In view of widespread concern about the workings of opted-out hospitals, and of the implications for an area such as my own if an application is approved, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate both on what was in and what was out of the Select Committee on Health's report on that topic? Must we wait for such a debate until the Privileges Committee has succeeded in swatting the Tory sneak?

Next Section

Home Page