House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Dec 1991

Column 1013

"How many disabled people, after being assessed for services under the Act , are now on waiting lists for the help that they need how many local authorities at the latest date for which figures are available, had reduced or removed services in cases where there was no diminution in the disabled person's needs".

I also asked the Minister to comment on a case, of which I had informed the Secretary of State for Health

"where home help provision was withdrawn from an elderly couple both of whom are severely and progressively disabled ?"--[ Official Report 3 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 138.]

Not one of my questions was answered by the Minister. I shall be grateful, therefore, if the Leader of the House will obtain the answers for me before the motion is approved.

Before he does so, I must tell the House that the legal advice given to me, when I was Minister for the Disabled, was that it was unlawful to keep disabled people who have been assessed for services on waiting lists for them. I was also unequivocally advised--as I know all my successors as Minister for the Disabled have been--that it was unlawful to reduce or withdraw a service provided under the Act unless the disabled person's need for it had diminished. Yet in the case about which I questioned the Minister for Health, on 3 December, home help provision was withdrawn from an elderly and severely and progressively disabled couple whose nearest relative lived over 180 miles away in Manchester.

They are not alone in having their legal rights trampled on. Arthritis Care and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation said in a recent statement that such cases could be found all over Britain and that

"widespread distress has been and continues to be caused among disabled people."

In a letter that I received from the Minister for Health before I questioned her in the House, she said, without any suggestion of criticism, that some local authorities had now withdrawn cleaning-only home help services altogether. If so, then ipso facto such services are no longer available to any disabled person in their areas, irrespective of need and the requirements of the law. That is a very serious matter indeed, about which there should not only be a statement to the House before the recess, but urgent ministerial action to end all misconceptions about the legal duties imposed by the Act. On behalf of many national organisations of and for disabled people, I implore the right hon. Gentleman to make a positive response to my plea to him to play his part in ending what their members see as law-breaking on an increasingly wide scale. In pressing the right hon. Gentleman to help, I emphasise that about 50 per cent. of the homeless in Britain this Christmas are expected to be disabled people, most of whom sleep rough due to the yawning gap between promise and performance in the Government's approach to community care. Thus, the two issues that I have raised are linked. Shelter says that there was a 92 per cent. increase in the number of homeless disabled people between 1980 and 1988, and the number has undoubtedly risen since then. That is sombre further proof of the need for a humane response from the Government before this debate concludes.

Column 1014

4.55 pm

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury) : In eight days' time, the House will rise for the three-week Christmas recess. I have no doubt that we are all looking forward to that event, a time for rest, a time to be at home with our families, a very special time when we talk of good will towards all men and hope that the happiness to which we look forward will be shared by others.

However, I suspect that for 28 people at least--those who remain of the 50 or so people who received blood transfusions contaminated with the HIV virus from the national health service between 1982 and October 1985-- Christmas will be overshadowed by the deadly nature of the virus and its awful consequences--its life-shortening consequences if it becomes AIDS. Now, of course, blood donations are screened to prevent such contamination happening again, but for those poor 28 people, unlike the 1,200 haemophiliacs who got the HIV virus from contaminated samples of the factor 8 blood product, no Macfarlane Trust exists for them, nor for those 22 who have already died from AIDS as a result of the virus, nor for their dependents.

It is right to ask why that should be the case. According to a letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health in the other place, Baroness Hooper, on 19 October 1991, the Government

"decided to make special provision for HIV infected haemophiliacs because we accepted that they were a very special case. The haemophiliacs were doubly disadvantaged by their hereditary condition, which was compounded by the onset of HIV. The position of those others infected with HIV through blood transfusions is more difficult, since the Government does not consider that their case is different in principle from that of others seriously harmed through medical accident."

So the Minister seems to acknowledge that those people have been seriously harmed through a medical accident derived from their treatment at the hands of the NHS, but the Minister goes on to say that it was nobody's fault--and anyway, that the haemophiliacs got compensation because they were haemophiliacs, not simply because they had been given contaminated factor 8.

It is almost the identical defence originally submitted by the Department of Health when it first refused to pay compensation to haemophiliacs. Effectively, it said, "If you can prove we were negligent, we will pay. If not, you get nothing." Legally, I recognise that that is strong ground, because proving negligence is an expensive and long drawn-out process, perhaps taking six to seven years, and how many of those 28 people who are still alive and who had contaminated blood transfusions will be alive that far ahead? There is another dimension to those cases in terms of what any of us expects from treatment under the NHS. Surely we expect to be made well or better than we were when we went for treatment. Also, I know of no patient who tells his doctor what treatment he should or should not receive. I know of no patient who has ever told his doctor that he needs a blood transfusion. The decision about the treatment is one for the medical staff. The patient does as he or she is told. I do not complain about that- -the doctor has the experience--but, if we place our lives in the hands of medical men, we presume that the course of treatment they prescribe will make us better, not give us a viral infection from which we will die. That is implicit in the contract, unwritten though it may be, between patient and doctor.

Column 1015

It adds up to a moral obligation which the service takes on when it describes itself as the national health service. Of course, the chance of our being made well depends on what we are suffering from when we enter hospital, but few, if any, of us expect to die from the treatment that we are given. Yet that is what is happening to the haemophiliacs and to those who have had tainted blood transfusions. Those people are now living in the twilight existence outlined to me by a haemophiliac constituent who had received contaminated factor 8. He asked me to go and see him at night so that his neighbour would not ask why the Member of Parliament was visiting him. He told me how fearful he was that his children's friends might find out about his condition and refuse to come to the house or to continue to be his children's friends.

He told me of his financial worries for his wife and his family if he could no longer work and if he subsequently died from AIDS ; about the problem of keeping up mortgage payments that pressed on his mind ; about the impossibility of obtaining any insurance and about that permanent worry as to whether his HIV positive condition would in the course of time turn to full-blown AIDS. Lastly, he explained that because of what had happened to him he had ceased to have any sexual relationship with his wife owing to the risk of infecting her. Effectively, that side of his marriage is over-- as, probably, is his life.

Thank goodness, the Government softened their attitude and their heart towards the haemophiliacs and gave them a sum, through the Macfarlane Trust, which relieved the financial worries of people like my constituent ; they gave a sum of £42 million. If they can give it to that group, why not to this much smaller group of

transfusion-damaged people? All the problems that apply to the haemophiliacs apply equally to them, and to give all 50 the same compensation would cost only £1,750,000.

I find the Department's argument that haemophiliacs are a very special case a very difficult one to follow. All these people are human beings. They have been given this dreadful virus, not because they asked for it, but because of something that happened within the Department. The same faith in the NHS that persuaded the haemophiliac to accept factor 8 from the NHS persuaded the 50 to accept blood transfusions from the NHS. But for the grace of God, I might have been one of them. I was receiving blood transfusions at that time from the NHS because of kidney failure. That is why I stand in the House tonight conscious that it is the grace of God that has preserved me and aware that I at least have a voice through which to make this House think again about the plight of the now only 28 people whose lives have been so blighted.

I put this appeal to the Leader of the House : a measure of compensation should be provided for these unhappy people. I know that I am not the only Member who feels strongly about this matter. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have made a number of appeals and put many questions to Ministers. In my opinion the good name of the Government, the Department of Health and the National Health Service is somehow besmirched by the failure to recognise the dreadful blight that has come to these people at the hands of the NHS.

When a Minister admits in a letter to me that a medical accident has killed 22 people and looks likely to kill a good many more, leaving families without financial support and ruining marriages, natural justice--and I submit that there is such a thing--demands compassion demonstrated by financial assistance.

Column 1016

I have already referred to the Macfarlane Trust, which disburses Government funds to the haemophiliacs. I wrote to its chairman, the Rev. Prebendary Alan Tanner, asking if the trust had any discretion as to who it helped with funds. In his reply Mr. Tanner said : "The Macfarlane Trust Deed was written very specifically for the haemophiliac community I am sorry to say that I do not think that your enquiry reveals a viable option. We hope that you and like-minded colleagues of all parties will be able to provide a separate and additional solution for other afflicted groups." So do I. After all, only as recently as last Tuesday the French Government decided to change its mind and bring forward a compensation package which included both haemophiliacs who had contracted HIV from contaminated blood products and those who had received blood transfusions also containing the virus. So why not us?

Baroness Hooper, in her letter, argues :

"The more that is spent on making payments to those who, through nobody's fault, have been harmed as a result of a medical accident, the less there is available for treating patients who have become ill."

That is quite right, but is her statement borne out by what we know of spending on AIDS, to take an example linked to the case that I am arguing? I fear not.

Only this week, on 10 December, The Daily Telegraph reported, under the heading "MPs attack NHS over AIDS money", as follows : "Government health officials were strongly criticised by MPs yesterday for their handling of health authorities who pinched' money earmarked to treat Aids for other purposes. Mr. Duncan Nichol, chief executive of the health service, was closely questioned by the Commons public accounts committee about the lack of disciplinary action against those responsible for significant lapses in Aids spending uncovered by the National Audit Office.

In a report in the summer, the Office found more than £15 million granted by the Government to combat Aids remained unspent or had been diverted to other work."

I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the Government need not stumble over the £1,750,000 which would give the same compensation to the 50 who received contaminated blood transfusions as was given to the haemophiliacs. The money is really there in terms of this £15 million, which I gather is now being sought from the local authorities that have misspent it and some of which, apparently, is unspent.

If I am right, providing that compensation would effectively cost the NHS nothing, but it would end one of the unhappiest and most tragic incidents to afflict the health service in my lifetime. While I know that my right hon. Friend, in winding up this debate, may not feel that he can comment in detail on what I have said, I ask him to convey my comments to the Secretary of State for Health and that, as a distinguished former Treasury Minister, he will consider what I have said about payment of compensation and, perhaps, before we resume in the new year, will have been able to make a statement that will give comfort to the 28 people who are still alive and to the dependants of the 22 who have already died from AIDS.

5.8 pm

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : Eloquently and at times movingly, hon. Members have used the Adjournment debate to raise distressing situations and to take the opportunity to remind us, as we approach the Christmas festivities, that many find themselves in very distressing circumstances. I take the opportunity to press the Government on the position in Croatia, where there

Column 1017

continues to be a massive loss of life. In particular, I want to ask the Leader of the House to comment on the dual issues of recognition of Croatia and the need for an international peacekeeping and peacemaking force in that troubled part of the world. If anyone is in doubt about the importance and the urgency of the matter, he need look only at today's tapes. Just two hours ago, I took the following extract from the tapes :

"Undeterred by freezing temperatures, the Yugoslav army and Croatian forces fought new battles today in Yugoslavia's breakaway republic of Croatia, further denting dwindling hopes of peace. The fighting raged throughout Croatia yesterday and up to 26 people were reported killed. This reduced the likelihood of a ceasefire taking hold that would allow the United Nations to send peacekeeping troops to Yugoslavia. Croatian radio said the town of Valpovo in eastern Croatia was under artillery fire all night and nearby villages were also fired on. The two of Zemenuk Donji, about six miles from the Adriatic coast, was also under attack".

According to the tapes, the European monitors, who have been reporting about the position in Croatia say that about 1,000 have been identified as having been killed during the fighting in Vukovar. The report continues :

"The once quiet town of 50,000 people on the river Danube was reduced to rubble by constant shelling and house-to-house fighting. About 14,000 civilians stayed through the siege, cowering in cellars."

Inevitably, much of the information is a patchwork of reports, but we know that about 11 per cent. of the population have been displaced by the fighting that has continued since the summer. Although estimates of casualties are notoriously unreliable, about 15,000 people have been registered as injured during the fighting, and 30, 000--90 per cent. of them civilians--are missing. We are told that 223 churches and monasteries have been destroyed, that damage to hospitals and other medical facilities is estimated at about £100 million and that damage to civilian property is estimated at between£1 billion and £2 billion. Dubrovnik, now in its 72nd day without electricity or water, is in a parlous state.

I heard from one Croatian earlier today about what had happened to her friends. She said that they had recently killed a pig for food but could not eat it after discovering human hands in its stomach ; it had been scavenging food from unburied bodies. That graphic illustration demonstrates the desperate seriousness of the position in Croatia and perhaps our failure in the West to concentrate our minds and our attention sufficiently on the tragedy.

There has been no debate in the House on the war in Croatia, but hon. Members have tabled early-day motions with which I have been associated. An all-party Friends of Croatia group has been established. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) tabled early-day motion 138. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) tabled early-day motion 219. About 70 signatures have been added to those motions. The hon. Members for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves), Ynys Mo n (Mr. Jones), Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) and Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) are among the sponsors of those motions. That demonstrates the breadth of concern in the House.

In looking at the origins of the conflict and at why hon. Members believe that there is a need for recognition of Croatia, it is worth reflecting that, in any civil war, families and communities become pitted against one another as old

Column 1018

grievances, half-remembered slights, distortion and disinformation compete tenaciously for attention. As we have heard today from the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), we need look no further than Northern Ireland to see the truth of what I am saying. Now, in what was Yugoslavia, there is massive communal violence between Croat and Serb, Catholic and Orthodox. One in ten of Croatia's inhabitants are of Serbian extraction and they, as a vulnerable minority, fear that in an independent Croatia they will be reduced to servile status. That issue has to be addressed by Croatians. For decades, Serbian privileges have permeated every public institution, the police, the army and all the apparatus which enabled the communist regime to flourish.

Collective memory prevents many of the principal players from seeking solutions based on trust, reconciliation or consensus. Serbians prefer instead to remind us of the all too real atrocities committed by the Ustashe, backed by the Nazis, who reputedly supported a programme of racial purification : one third of Croatia's Serbian population was to be exterminated, one third repatriated to Serbia and the remainder forcibly converted to Catholicism. Many Serbian families living in London can graphically describe the barbarism which they experienced during that lamentable period. Notwithstanding that, many Croatians also supported Tito and the patriots.

The issue now is not what happened in the 1940s. To confuse those events with the present tragedy is as logical as saying that every member of today's German Government could be associated with the events of the 1930s and with Hitler's Germany. Surely, in looking to the future, we must look to today's Croatian leadership. We must examine what they stand for, whether they are entitled to our respect and whether their goals differ from those of the Ustashe. Most of today's leaders are modern democrats who see their future as an independent state within the European Community of nations. With a population of 4.5 million, that would put them on a par with some of the Community's smaller states. The Croatian Democratic Union successfully fought the 1990 election on a programme of establishing a modern democratic state. It is pledged to reprivatising social ownership, the establishment of a market economy, the guarantee of all human and civil rights and the rule of law. In contrast, Serbia continues to be ruled by communist hardliners who seem totally uninterested in resolving the Yugoslav crisis democratically. Some commentators have caricatured Croatia's leaders as the heirs of fascism. I think that caricature is unworthy of those commentators. We need to look more deeply at the issue. We must recognise that people in Croatia are entitled to the same aspirations as the rest of us. In the recent referendum, 94.6 per cent. voted for self-determination and the right of autonomy.

I should like to commend three principles to the Leader of the House for action. The first is self-determination and the protection of democracy. We should not be locked into borders created in the aftermath of world war two. We have already had to recognise the reality of events in the Soviet Union and the emergence again of the Baltic states as independent republics. There will be massive changes

Column 1019

throughout eastern and central Europe, so there is no point in clinging to old borders and old boundaries. Surely it is the principle of self-determination which must count.

I agree strongly with the Foreign Secretary's description of the Serbian- dominated federal army as a band of brigands. He should also recognise the legitimacy of the Croatians to break free from that band of brigands and to be able to have control over their own affairs.

The second principle is international recognition. The Prime Minister said that the Government would consider recognition "when there is peace". That is a formula for ensuring that there never will be peace. It builds in a reason why the Serbs should continue the conflict. Germany is about to recognise Croatia, probably before Christmas. European Community leaders will discuss the issue on Monday. I hope that we will not try to impede the process. We should not see it as a stalking horse for a common European foreign policy or defence policy.

If the Prime Minister is to be consistent with the statements made post- Maastricht that every issue will be considered on its merits, he and the Foreign Secretary should look at the position in Croatia on its merits and consider again the issue of recognition. If Croatia were recognised, it would enable it to go to the United Nations to argue its case. That is the main reason why that important decision needs to be taken.

The third principle is international peacemaking. In the House, we have maintained the need to have a United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking force in parts of the world where people's rights are suppressed. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, in the House we sanctioned the use of force to re-establish the legitimacy of the Kuwaiti Government to govern their own affairs. I believe that we should argue for nothing less, despite the fact that no oil or financial interests are involved. Sadly, those are all too often the major motivating force.

The same logic should apply to Croatia. One half of Europe should not become obsessed with monetary union and internal policy while the other half cracks up. We must take action with our European neighbours and through the United Nations to try to end the conflict in Croatia. We should not wait until the conflict is resolved before discussing whether to send a peacekeeping force.

The Government should consider the possibility of erecting a sky shield over Croatian air space. It would not require the deployment of troops on the ground, but would stop some of the worst aerial bombardment and could be enforced effectively by NATO or the United Nations. We also need the establishment of more humanitarian sea lanes, which the Foreign Secretary has already supported. Such a sensible idea could give immediate relief.

We should also consider the issue of humanitarian aid. So far, just £77,000 has been given, yet one in eight Croatians are displaced persons or refugees. Given the chronic poverty, hunger and destitution, we should try to increase the amount of aid that we give.

The European Community observers' report starkly and bleakly reminds the House of our need to be concerned about what is happening in that important corner of Europe. In their report published today, they say that the army is

"ready to press the button for a ground offensive which could cut through Croatia and Slovenia".

That could happen within the next seven days--before Christmas. But the report says that the army will try to

Column 1020

take back Slovenia and reclaim the old Yugoslavia. It says that nine regions of Bosnia with Serbian majorities are said to be preparing to declare autonomy but that the army is arming Bosnian Serbs and disarming Muslims and Croats.

The EC observers say :

"An aerial photograph would show Bosnia as a huge assembly area of army forces ready to break into Croatia."

EC observers have warned President Kucan of Slovenia that he is likely to be personally attacked. The European Community mission has been told that it should leave

"if the expected surge in fighting takes place next week." European Community observers do not favour recognition. They, too, have been saying that we should wait. But that is a form of appeasement. After 14 broken ceasefires, such a position will not deter the Serbian army, which the west has armed as a buffer state. The moral case for international intervention and recognition is overwhelming. When the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) went to Prague last year, she said --I totally agree with her--that never again would we in the United Kingdom ignore the plight of a small country because it was a faraway place and we knew little about it or its people. Is not that precisely what has been happening as Dubrovnik and Vukovar have been pounded into the ground, while people have been terrorised and churches and hospitals destroyed?

We must recognise that it is not a conflict between equals--the Queensberry rules have not been applied in Croatia. Serbia invaded Croatia, not the other way around. Serbia has access to stockpiles of arms and the full might of the federal army, whereas Croatia does not. In trying to shape western public opinion, Serbia is using all the crude black propagandist tricks that have been the hallmark of communist Governments throughout the years.

There is no logical reason why the British Government and the European Community should be indifferent to the plight of a small European nation, or why we should pretend to hold a neutral position in that battle of unequals. We should ensure that there is an effective international response to the conflict and, once a democracy is constructed in Croatia, minorities are adequately protected and all possible efforts are made to achieve reconciliation in that part of the world.

5.25 pm

Mr. John Ward (Poole) : This evening we shall hear various speeches on matters of national and international importance. I draw the attention of the House to two subjects, the first of which is concerned with human welfare and the second with animal welfare. In 1988, stringent regulations were introduced in this country to prevent the sale of furniture and furnishings that did not meet tough flammability standards. Those regulations affected particularly the use of foam in furniture but covered only domestic upholstered furniture. Many of us hoped that similar regulations would be introduced to cover furniture in buildings open to the public, in cars and in public transport, including aircraft.

At present, the only European Community countries with fire regulations for domestic furniture are the United Kingdom and Ireland. Furniture in public buildings throughout the EC is covered by guidelines, voluntary agreements and codes of practice. Many of us hoped that avoidable deaths by fire could be prevented through the introduction of EC-wide regulations and, two years ago,

Column 1021

work began on such a directive covering both domestic and contract furniture. A second draft directive was circulated last year and there was talk of a separate draft directive covering furniture in means of transport.

Now, however, EC Commissioner Bangemann has announced that the new directive, which would introduce lower standards of fire resistance than those currently required in the United Kingdom, could be postponed for up to eight years. That decision has been taken because the original proposed directive would introduce controls on the ignition resistance of furniture, and later measures would be introduced to control the spread of fire in ignited furniture. Commissioner Bangemann now wants to wait until the tests on the latter requirement have been devised before introducing either control.

That is bureaucracy gone mad. Although the United Kingdom would still be protected from the deadly effects of old-style foam fillings, the rest of the EC would continue to be at risk. I presume that we must now monitor the problem carefully to ensure that furniture that does not meet our high standards is not imported into the United Kingdom. Above all, we do not want lower standards of fire protection in this country, simply in the interests of EC harmonisation. I congratulate the Consumers Association, which has campaigned for many years to have dangerous foam banned in the United Kingdom. I commend to the House its current campaign to ensure that our safety regulations are introduced throughout the EC in the shortest possible time. The association tells me that it is supported by fire brigades throughout the United Kingdom and it intends to bombard Commissioner Bangemann with seasonal greetings that will also ask him to reconsider his decision to postpone the introduction of an EC directive on safety in furniture. If any hon. Members wish to join in that campaign, full details are contained in the current edition of Which? I am sure that the House will wish to support the Consumers Association in its campaign.

I hope that Commissioner Bangemann will accept that we should introduce the safety regulations that can be implemented now, and introduce those that require more sophisticated testing at a later date. It is madness not to introduce each safety measure as soon as possible. We should not have to wait to present a neat and tidy package of regulations.

It is particularly distressing that we should have to debate this sad but vital subject at Christmas and we must convince the European Commissioner that he has a duty to take immediate action to prevent needless deaths that could be avoided by strict controls over the use of foam, which rapidly produces toxic fumes when subjected to fire. The second subject to which I wish to refer is animal welfare. Records show that standards of animal welfare in this country are generally higher than those of our European partners, but many of us are still concerned that regulations to be introduced in this country in 1998, such as a ban on tethering sows, will not apply to the rest of the European Community until 2006. The EC directive does not deal with the close confinement of sows, which has already been dealt with in this country.

At present, the only way of showing our disapproval of veal crates is not to buy veal in this country, provided we

Column 1022

are able to identify it. Animal welfare in an appropriate issue for the European Commission to act on and improve standards throughout the Community.

At a time when European food stores are bulging it seems senseless to go on producing surpluses of meat in such cruel conditions. We have all seen the distressing scenes on television when live animals are transported across the continent of Europe for ultimate slaughter. I am sure that most of us would prefer all the animals to be slaughtered here before being exported. I accept that that may not always be possible.

I want the European Commission inspectorate which is to be appointed-- largely as a result of the effort of our own Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his colleagues, on which I congratulate them--to have effective powers and penalties at its disposal. I welcome the fact that there are proposals for a directive covering the welfare of animals at slaughter. I am told that it will roughly conform to the laws already in force in the United Kingdom. I am worried that some of our European partners will not wish to enforce directives on animal welfare ; so the European Commission inspectorate must have the power to enforce the regulations. I particularly wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on achieving what some may consider a minor protocol at Maastricht on animal welfare. It ensures the consideration of cruelty issues in all future moves by the Commission and European Community Ministers, which should help to prevent some of the factory farming scandals of which we know and some of the well-publicised Spanish practices involving cruelty to animals. I trust that progress can be made in obtaining protection for animals and--this is important--fire protection for humans.

5.33 pm

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : I hope to raise a number of issues that affect my constituency and constituents. Since the Government introduced poll tax capping, I and other hon. Friends and representatives from local authorities have tried, without success, to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment of the unfairness of the standard spending assessments and how the system works to the disadvantage of my local authority of Barnsley and its residents.

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has clearly recognised the problem, and responded by saying that the system is unfair and it would not object to movement in the total SSA of all local authorities to try to overcome that unfairness.

Next year's increase in standard spending assessment will give Barnsley authority an increase of just 4.6 per cent.--only 89 per cent. of the average increase for all the Metropolitan districts, 68 per cent. of the national average increase, 65 per cent. of the average of the shire counties increase and 55 per cent. of the increase given to the city of Westminster. The rate support grant settlement announced recently, the unfairness of the SSA and this year's reduction in the area support grant mean that the poll tax payers of Barnsley will have to pay significantly higher poll tax while the local authority is faced with a £5 million cut in its already depleted services.

While I accept that someone has to be at the bottom of the league, the way that the figures are calculated means

Column 1023

not only that we are at the bottom, but that the system is unfair. Why is it that for every £1 per adult that Barnsley receives, Manchester receives £1.78, Westminster receives £2, Liverpool receives £1.54 and Birmingham receives £1.53 ? How can the House accept that an average 1,000 pupil school, costs Manchester £654 per pupil more than it costs Barnsley ? Surely there cannot be such a difference in the educational system of the two authorities. Why is my authority deprived of the money that other people are able to receive ?

While I think that the Secretary of State understands the problem, he cannot find a formula to alter Barnsley's position without altering that of every other local authority. His answer that someone has to be at the bottom does not alleviate Barnsley's problem. The gap between those at the top and bottom of the league is huge, and needs to be decreased through a restructuring of the grant system for all local authorities. I accept that that will mean that other local authorities will have to lose some of their grants, but the extent of the present unfairness is unbelievable.

There are many effects of that injustice : roadworks are not carried out ; the parks and recreation department has been cut to a minimum ; repairs to schools have not been carried out for the past three to four years ; the whole of the adult education system is now being wiped out ; and social services provisions such as home helps has been curtailed. About 50 per cent. of social workers are currently on strike purely because the necessary regrading structure cannot be implemented because the money is not available. The fire service, which runs on the same standard spending assessment formula, is also affected. The fire service SSA was due to be increased by 9.2 per cent.--the highest increase for some time--but the capping level is below that. Therefore, the service cannot receive the 9.2 per cent. increase that it was supposed to have. Once the figure reaches 4.8 per cent., its levels are capped.

The issue is significant in relation to the speech of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) on foam furniture. The fire service, which is already 28 firemen short, will lose another 52 men because they cannot be paid. Training has been cut : for the past two years no senior officers have been sent to Moreton in the Marsh for specialised training because the money is not available. The trickle-down effect of that is that services and training are not available. There is a delay in the replacement of equipment, and repairs to equipment have been cut. That means that appliances are kept on the road for far longer than they should be without being serviced. Minimum basic training is disappearing.

I know of a specific problem involving Mr. and Mrs. Hodgson of Rockley Abbey farm, Worsbrough, who farm various districts around my constituency, one of which is at Worsbrough, down White Cross lane. The only way out from that district involves crossing a railway bridge. The central farm is at Rockley Abbey ; farm machinery and the stores of produce are kept in outlying regions. That means that 500 tonnes of corn, 300 tonnes of rape, 100 tonnes of barley and a quantity of beans have to be transported down that lane. British Rail has asked the local authority to reduce the restrictive load across the bridge from 30 to 3 tonnes, so the produce and farm machinery cannot now be moved across the bridge.

Since April, nobody said a word to the farmer about that happening. Had he been told, a store would have been made on the other side of the bridge, but his produce is

Column 1024

now waiting in a barn or a store. Farm equipment is on the wrong side of the bridge and it cannot be got across ; nor can the containers go across to bring out the produce.

Nothing has altered on the bridge since it was built. The structure and the surface are the same. Only the regulations about how to calculate the safety of a bridge have altered. It is merely a bit of paper which says that such a bridge can now carry only 3 tonnes. Since April, there have been arguments with the local authority about whose responsibility it is. The local authority, as the highway authority, has accepted that it is responsible. At a cost of £6, 000--that sum has to be put to a committee because of poll tax capping--the authority could enable the bridge to carry 17 tonnes and thus allow the farm equipment to cross, but that would still not bring out the farm produce.

It is inconceivable that in 1945 we could in a few hours build across the Rhine bridges that could bear armies, but that now we cannot build a bridge to carry corn in a 20-tonne load. British Rail insists that the work must go out to tender and that there must be a design stage before then. It is estimated that the work to increase the capacity to 17 tonnes will take three months.

However, there is another problem. European Community regulations impose a certain way of bringing the corn across. They ask whether the load can be decanted and brought across in 10-tonne loads and pushed into 28-tonnes vans. That problem is currently being considered, but, even if the regulations are waived, there is still the problem that in three months the farmer will be near bankruptcy because the contracts that he had already signed to sell his produce cannot be kept. It is inconceivable that such an attitude should prevail.

It is necessary only for British Rail to lift the restriction for a few hours and for its inspectors to be present to allow the load to cross. The local authority, having accepted a 17-tonne limit, could do the work in three months and the farmer could get his machinery across and store it on the other side.

In the long term--this relates to standard spending assessments--it will cost the local authority £1 million to build a new bridge. It is a political issue because, in view of capping, the authority must decide whether, faced with crumbling schools and cuts in services, it can spend £1 million to build a bridge to satisfy the needs of a farmer who has a legal right to get his stock across.

That is a Catch-22 situation and the Government must consider two aspects. First, they should persuade British Rail to lift the restrictions so that the farmer does not go bankrupt and, secondly, they must ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to allow a local authority to spend the money to remedy the problem with the bridge. If they do not, it will be clear how ridiculous and inflexible central and local government are in not allowing the authority to carry out its duties merely because of insufficient finances.

Before the House rises, I should like to think that the produce will get across and that there will be some sensibility in the SSA to help my hard- pressed authority. I should also like to think that the Secretary of State who refused to meet representatives of the authority will at least have the magnanimity to recognise the problem and to use his good offices to remedy it. I should like to see some sensibility in the Government's attitude towards allowing local authorities to get on with their duties.

Column 1025

5.43 pm

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : I shall follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) by talking about another public service, in this case one which is very near the heart of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, because he was once Secretary of State for Education and Science. I want to talk especially about adult education, and to ask for a clear statement of Government policy before the House rises for the Christmas recess. I appreciate that the House has exceptionally important business next week, but there are a number of matters about which there is considerable public concern and which need immediate clarification. During Question Time this week, I asked the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science about the representations that he had received on the future financing of adult education. he said : "I am aware of the concern felt by community colleges in Leicestershire, Devon and Cambridgeshire."

He continued :

"we can categorically reassure those colleges that they have nothing to fear."--[ Official Report, 10 December 1991 ; Vol 200, c. 724.]

The community college provision in Leicestershire and in many other counties is extremely important. Such colleges are, so to speak, schools during the day, and cater for varying ages, although in my constituency Rutland is different from what I would call "old Leicestershire". However, in the late afternoon and evening, they become an important part of adult and further education. I believe that the same is true in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). My wife, my family and I take advantage of these provisions at Uppingham community college in my constituency.

Such institutions are important and are well respected by members of the public, so there is concern that they might be badly affected by the new Bill. Having had assurances from my hon. Friend, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could repeat them and say that community colleges--I am not talking about colleges of further education--play an important part in Government thinking, and that the Government do not believe that they will be disadvantaged by the new arrangements.

That would reassure the community colleges that have expressed their concern to me, and it would also reassure the Workers Educational Association, which is a respected organisation. The secretary of its east midlands district wrote to me--and, I am sure, to many other hon. Members representing east midlands constituencies :

"There is no recognition of Role Education in the White Paper"-- which is now a Bill. He continued :

"This includes retirement education, school governor training, education for those actively involved in voluntary organisations, many courses enabling women to play a fuller part at work and in society and courses building the confidence of the unemployed." He asked :

"Can you bring pressure to bear to identify and acknowledge the importance of this very large sector of adult education?" One specific aspect, I know, is of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), whom I am delighted to see here. Only the day before yesterday, he and I were discussing adult basic education, which means, in practice, helping people who have learning difficulties. Such people have often left school and

Next Section

Home Page