| Previous Section | Home Page |
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : Could the Leader of the House arrange, before the debate on inflation next week, for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on how he proposes to establish the financial arrangements for community-based training programmes? They have done an excellent job in the past, but they are under pressure at present, despite the fact that they have done a great deal, throughout the Province, to help young people and to keep them out of the hands of the paramilitaries.
Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about those programmes, and I shall draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North) : Will it be possible to have an early debate on early-day motion 263 in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and myself?
[That this House opposes proposals arising from the review of its regional organisation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ; considers that the proposal to reduce the Ministry's five regional and divisional offices in Eastern England to one regional centre at Cambridge will substantially diminish its service to the farming community in that region, will reduce the effectiveness of such conservation schemes as the environmentally sensitive areas and set aside schemes and will prevent the Ministry from implementing EC proposals for reforming the Common Agricultural Policy ; and calls for the Ministry to establish a second regional centre in Norwich.] It criticises proposals for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reduce the number of offices in eastern England from five to one. Will my right hon. Friend particularly bear in mind the fact that the matter needs to be reviewed in the light of the recent volte-face by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food office in Truro?
Mr. MacGregor : I am familiar with the situation. The concentration of administrative work at fewer regional centres will significantly improve the cost-effectiveness of the operations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, including the service that it provides to its customers. The matter has been thoroughly aired, and I cannot promise a debate on it in Government time next week.
Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : The Home Secretary has written to inform me that 11 million summonses have been issued for non-payment of the poll tax. Can we debate next week the legislation that demands that local authorities prosecute the estates of people who have died for their share of the poll tax, particularly in the case of many of my constituents, whose estates cannot even pay for their funerals?
Column 475
Mr. MacGregor : I see no way in which that issue can be raised in the business that I have announced for next week.Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will my right hon. Friend consider his reply to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who asked for more Opposition day debates? Will he consider, in the light of developments this week, having such a debate next week? Is he aware that this week in the Chamber the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was unable to name a single strike that the Labour party had condemned in the past 13 years? Is he also aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was unable to name a single economist who approved of increasing taxes as a way out of recession? Would not an Opposition day debate next week give the public an opportunity to see that, when the Labour party has to answer questions on its policies, those answers are about as straight as a right-angled bend?
Mr. MacGregor : I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that a number of the points that he raises can be discussed during our debate next Wednesday. There can be no doubt that the Labour party's policies on taxation and, inevitably, on borrowing--given its high spending policies-- will lead to inflation. Therefore, the issue will be directly relevant to next Wednesday's debate. It will be interesting to see which speakers the Opposition choose for that debate. Whoever they are, I am quite sure that we shall have the same resounding victory next week as we did this week when comparing the policies of the two parties.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : According to the best available estimates, including a parliamentary answer, more than 3 per cent. of the population are missing from the electoral register. That is unique in this country in modern times, and it is a serious issue that should concern Conservative Members--indeed, any hon. Member. May we have a statement next week, together with full details of the figures, constituency by constituency, on the current electoral register as electoral returning officers had until last Sunday to return the complete figures, which are now available in the Department of Health, and which it will not reveal to the House? We need a full, frank investigation of the current position before we move closer to the general election. Today is the last day for sending in registration details if there is to be a general election on 9 April. We are now in the final position, so we need the final information so that we can discuss it.
Mr. MacGregor : I have noticed, week after week, the hon. Gentleman's obsession with the electoral register. I think that there must be something other than he suggests behind his concern. He is obviously getting even more apprehensive as the general election approaches. It is entirely up to the individual, who is always encouraged to register for voting. The Government spend about half a million pounds every year on publicity to encourage people to register, so we are doing everything that we can in the way of encouragement.
Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : My right hon. Friend is renowned for being a fair person. May I refer him to Wednesday's debate on inflation? Does he appreciate that, inadvertently, he will cause the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer his broad back to the knife throwers behind him. I offer my right hon. Friend a
Column 476
solution : he should invite my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to open on behalf of the Government so that we can flush out Her Majesty's Leader of the Opposition and listen to his solutions, once and for all, to our economic problems.Mr. MacGregor : I assure my hon. Friend that my action was not inadvertent. I am looking forward to hearing what the Opposition spokesmen say in next week's debate on inflation. Perhaps the right solution would be for both of them to speak so that we could spot the differences.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : May we have a statement next week on moving mentally handicapped people from hospitals into the community? Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Health to investigate what is happening at Westwood hospital, in Bradford? Is he aware that that hospital is being emptied, and there is widespread suspicion that the local health authority hopes that it will become empty next year when it can be closed without the inconvenience of having to consult properly with the community or obtain the permission and approval of the Secretary of State for Health? Surely that is a scandal, and the clear intention behind the secret closure of the hospital is to enable the community health trust to flog off the hospital and its extensive grounds for an enormous profit. That scandal should be investigated, the patients should be prevented from being removed, there should be a proper investigation, and proper procedures should be observed.
Mr. MacGregor : From the information that is available to me, the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. Bradford health authority conducted a full public consultation between August and November 1990 on its proposals for the development of services for people with learning disabilities, and that included the future role of Westwood hospital. It is currently consulting the community health council about the next phase of those plans. The health authority has confirmed that it will continue to consult with the health council and other interested parties on its proposals. There is widespread public consultation, so it would not be appropriate to have a debate next week.
Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that a letter which is circulating in Battersea purports to show that a certain Mr. Phil Brown is a Liberal Democrat councillor for the area? Given that there is not a single Liberal Democrat councillor in the London borough of Wandsworth, and that in the constituency of Battersea there was not even a single Liberal Democrat candidate at the last borough elections, could my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for the Environment so that we can discuss the legality of the use of the word "councillor" and so that the Liberal Democrat spokesman on that subject can explain this disreputible, dirty trick?
Mr. MacGregor : I think that my hon. Friend will wish strongly to pursue the matter locally. If I heard him aright, it seems that the Liberal Democrats are trying to establish that they have a presence in that area when they certainly have not.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Has the Leader of the House read early-day motion 713?
Column 477
[That this House deplores the actions of Dr. Gwyn Jones in obtaining a grant of £16,895 in July 1988 under false pretences from the Welsh Development Agency Rural Conversion Grant Scheme, four months after being appointed Chairman-designate of the Welsh Development Agency ; notes that the grant was awarded for converting the Old Flour Mill at Porthmadog into craft workshops, whereas in the event it was converted into residential accommodation ; notes further that Dr. Jones has recently made a partial repayment of the grant of £3,395 ; and urges the Agency to seek repayment in full from its Chairman, lest any other Chairman-designate of any public body follows his example in attempting to defraud the body of which they are about to become Chairman.]It has been signed by me and seven other hon. Members and severely criticises the conduct of the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, Dr. Gwyn Jones, for obtaining a grant of £17,000 from the WDA while he was chairman-designate of the agency for building craft workshops in Porthmadog.
Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, as I understand from yesterday's proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee that a minor repayment of £3,395 has now been made by Dr. Jones to the agency which he chairs? The repayments started only three weeks ago, whereas Dr. Jones was warned by Mr. Evan Lloyd Jones, the monitoring officer for the agency for north Wales, that the development at the old flour mill in Porthmadog was not craft workshops and did not comply with the terms for a grant under the rural conversion grant scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman also arrange for a statement by the Secretary of State on nominated bodies that are staffed and stuffed with Tory rejects and are the means that the Government use to rule Wales? That should shortly come to an end.
Mr. MacGregor : I understand that, at yesterday's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the agency's accounting officer promised a full note.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I shall call the hon. Members who are standing, but I ask them to be brief because we need to move on to the next debate.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : May we have a debate next week on the "Can't pay, won't pay" campaign which is being conducted by people who are best described as poll tax parasites? In that debate we could highlight the fact that those people are trying to unload their local government costs and the legal costs that they incur on to their honest, law-abiding tax-paying neighbours.
Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes a fair point that law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are having to pay for the non-payment by others of the community charge. We have deplored that on many occasions and will continue to do so.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) : On Monday's business, has my right hon. Friend received a clear indication from the Labour Opposition that they will support the prevention of terrorism order or, as I suspect, does my right hon. Friend know that they will be soft on terrorism again and will not support the order?
Column 478
Mr. MacGregor : That is not a matter for me, but at the moment I am not aware of what the Opposition's stance will be.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East) : As he has visited Bristol twice in the past few weeks and has been warmly welcomed by the residents of that great city, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Avon county council has refused to use the criminal law to evict travellers from illegal sites. Consequently, my constituents in Royate hill have for 15 months suffered death threats, violence, crime and squalor. Is it not about time that we had a debate not just on travellers' needs but on residents' rights? May we have a debate on amending the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986?
Mr. MacGregor : I know of the strong feeling that exists in my hon. Friend's constituency. As he rightly pointed out, I have visited it twice in recent months, and on both occasions the matter was raised with me with considerable force and vigour. I sympathise, and understand exactly why that is so.
I am aware that concern is felt about the operation of the Acts that my hon. Friend mentioned. We shall certainly have to turn our attention to that matter, but I am afraid that it will not be possible to debate it next week.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : May we have a debate next week on the difficulties experienced by insulin-dependent diabetics? Although they are grateful for the Government's sanctioning of free autolet needles, they are seeking an extension to the free prescribing of pen needles, for which there is an urgent need in particular cases. A specific group in my constituency is experiencing such a need, but I believe that it exists throughout the country.
Mr. MacGregor : The Department of Health recognises that injection pens offer a convenient alternative to disposable syringes, which are already on prescription, but the cost is significant. A decision to make them available on prescription must therefore be made in the light of available resources and other competing priorities. Pens and other needles may be provided free through a hospital when a consultant considers them necessary on clinical grounds.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : May we have an early debate on the gross misuse of stolen Government documents by Opposition Members? Would not that give us an opportunity to discuss the appalling double standards shown by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who seems content to use and receive stolen property for his own political devices, but who, when his source appears to dry up, suddenly becomes enamoured of the idea of a freedom of information Act that would make his irresponsible and deceitful actions wholly illegal?
Mr. MacGregor : I note that, so far, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has favoured highly selective leaks. He seems to disaprove of all leaks other than those for which he is responsible.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : May I revert to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who drew attention to the urgent need for a debate on the national health service next week? A debate would give many of us an opportunity to
Column 479
highlight the success of general practitioner budgetholding--especially in Longfield and New Ash Green, in the Dartford constituency, which contains one of the first waves of budget holders. Perhaps, during the same debate, we could wish every success to the Dartford East health centre, which will adopt budget holding from 1 April.
Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that, in the coming weeks and months, the House will have many opportunities to debate the issue, and to highlight the fact that GP fund-holding measures are working extremely well--and that the Labour party is making a great mistake by pledging to get rid of them.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the administration of justice in Greater London, and, in particular, on the independence of magistrates? A view is circulating in Greater London--it is, in fact, the view of the Greater London Labour party--that magistrates should be subject to party discipline, and should follow what is described as the party line on justice. I do not know what that means, but it sounds extremely sinister. I think that we should establish, and let people in London know, precisely what Labour means by this.
Mr. MacGregor : I do not know what that means, and I do not know too much about it at this stage ; but I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue the matter further. Certainly, if what he has described were the case, it would be absolutely deplorable.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Given the imminence of the general election, may we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, on the funding of political parties so that we can discuss--among other things-- the recent £500-a-head Labour party fund-raising dinner ? Does my right hon. Friend consider that the main significance of the
Column 480
dinner is the fact that only people who can afford to £500 for a dinner can afford to vote Labour, or the fact that only under a Tory Government can people afford to spend so much on such a daft dinner ?Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend makes his point in his own inimitable way. Certainly the disposable income of a large number of people throughout the country would be substantially
reduced--considerably reduced--if Labour were ever in a position to carry out its tax and spending policies. Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : With the general election not too far away, would it not be a good idea to debate some more substantial issues before it is called ? The Prime Minister has said that he believes in a classless society. Why do we not have a proper debate about that before the election ? Why do we not have a debate about the fact that if there is to be a classless society we shall need to get rid of the House of Lords, the honours list, tax-assisted private education, private health treatment and queue-jumping ? And it would not be a bad idea if we were to have a debate about taxing the Queen's income.
Mr. MacGregor : I should be very happy at some point to have a debate about the classless society. In such a debate, we could point out that the average living standard of people in this country has risen by about one third in real terms during the period of the Conservative Government, that 4 million people have become home owners for the first time, that personal pensions and occupational pensions have been hugely extended, and that the savings of so many people have greatly risen. Such a debate would enable us also to point out that many of the other changes we have introduced have been actively used by members of the Labour party, to their benefit. There is no doubt that the classless and much wider owner- occupying society has been achieved by the Conservative party. The Labour policies about which we are beginning to hear would set that back greatly.
Column 481
Carley Reavill
4.31 pm
Dr. Cunningham (Copeland) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions today my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) put to the Prime Minister a question concerning the appalling tragedy that had befallen Carley Reavill. May we have it on the record that the Prime Minister seems to have been misadvised about this tragic case? Dr. Alison Shurtz has confirmed that Carley was diagnosed as having meningitis shortly after arrival at Queen Elizabeth II hospital, and she would have been transferred to another hospital if an intensive paediatric care bed had been available. Dr. Duncan Matthews, of the Great Ormond Street hospital, has said that critically ill children are being denied intensive care treatment because there is not any money to make beds available. It was the shortage of beds, caused by the shortage of funding in the national health service, that led to this appalling tragedy.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : This is not a point of order for me. It seems to be a continuation of Question Time.
Mr. Speaker : Try to make it a point of order for me.
Mr. Dickens : Do you, Mr. Speaker, think that it would be helpful to you and to the House to know where that information came from so that a judgment might be made?
Mr. Speaker : I do not think that it would be helpful to me. This is not a point of order for me.
Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
Commonwealth Development Corporation
That the draft Commonwealth Development Corporation (Raising of Limits on Borrowing and Advances) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
Question agreed to.
Column 482
Orders of the Day
Transport and Works Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
4.32 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the political law of detailed explanation. Normally when a Minister has given a detailed reason why something cannot happen, life changes--for example, when it is explained in detail why a polytechnic cannot be called a university, and within six months the Government change their policy and bring in a Bill to allow that change ; or when a Minister explains the practical advantages of the community charge, and a short time later the community charge is changed to the council tax ; or when it is explained why HIV victims cannot be compensated and then there is a change. That normally comes about because, when a Minister gives a detailed explanation, it is possible to engage in debate and the Government can review their proposals.
As it is not easy to extend the time for Second Reading of a Bill--this Bill had a half-day Second Reading debate--and as there are rules about what may be considered on Report, might my hon. Friend the Minister be invited to see whether, between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, he can find some means of meeting, in private if not in public, an all-party delegation to consider whether the limits for public service vehicle drivers proposed in the Bill, which, if the Bill is passed, can be changed by regulation, might be reduced?
Mr. Speaker : That is surely a matter that could be raised on Third Reading. I imagine that it forms part of the Bill and that it can therefore be raised on Third Reading.
Mr. Bottomley : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I had assumed that what was not in the Bill, which is a different set of limits, could not be discussed. This is not the time to go through what happened in Committee. It is worth pointing out, however, that, on the eighth day of the Committee, a very detailed opening discussion, or Second Reading discussion, was introduced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Other hon. Members, who were not members of the Committee, would, I believe, have liked to take part in that debate. I suspect that your guidance will be useful to the House. It may also be that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will want to consider my suggestion.
Mr. Speaker : It will be for the hon. Member to raise that matter on Third Reading, if he catches the eye of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman asks the Minister to see a delegation, I have no doubt that he will be willing to do so.
New clause 2
Maintenance of footpaths and bridleways
.--(1) Section 36 of the Highways Act 1980 (highways maintainable at public expense) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), at the end of paragraph (c), the word "and" shall be omitted.
Column 483
(3) After paragraph (d) of subsection (2), there shall be added-- "(e) a highway, being a footpath or bridleway, created in consequence of a rail crossing diversion order, or of an order made under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964, or of an order made under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992." (4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted--"(3A) Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) above shall not apply to a footpath or bridleway, or to any part of a footpath or bridleway, which by virtue of an order of a kind referred to in that subsection is maintainable otherwise than at the public expense.".'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Secontime.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 43 and 52.
Mr. McLoughlin : The new clause arises from the constructive discussions that we have held with the Rights of Way Review Committee on the provisions in the Bill relating to footpaths and from promises given in Committee. It amends section 36 of the Highways Act 1980 so that new paths or ways created as a consequence of rail crossing diversion orders or harbour orders or works orders made under clauses 1 or 3 of the Bill will be maintained at public expense, except where that is not appropriate--for example, that part of a new right of way which crosses a railway, where responsibility for maintenance must rest with the operator. The new clause, combined with amendment No. 43, offers the necessary flexibility to ensure that appropriate and comprehensive arrangements for maintenance can be made by the Secretary of State in confirming a rail crossing diversion order or in making a harbour or transport works order. Amendment No. 52 is a consequential small repeal, of section 36(2) of the Highways Act. I commend the new clause, and the amendments, as I have said, achieve what the Rights of Way Review Committee wants.
Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : Hon. Members who served on the Committee, as well as all other hon. Members, will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that explanation. It clarifies the position relating to section 36 of the Highways Act to which the Under-Secretary referred. It goes a long way--indeed, I believe that it goes the entire way ; let me be placatory at this early stage--towards meeting the assurance that the Under-Secretary gave in Committee, for which we are grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 8
Footpaths and bridleways over railways
.--(1) This section applies where--
(a) a public right of way over a footpath or bridleway crosses a railway or tramway otherwise than by a tunnel or bridge,
(b) the operator of the railway or tramway has made a closure or diversion application in respect of the crossing, and
Column 484
(c) in the opinion of the Secretary of State the crossing constitutes a danger to members of the public using it or likely to use it.(2) The Secretary of State may by order require the operator to provide a tunnel or a bridge, or to improve an existing tunnel or bridge, to carry the path or way over or under the railway or tramway at or reasonably near to the crossing to which the closure or diversion application relates.
(3) An order under this section may include particulars as to the tunnel or bridge which is to be provided or as to the improvements which are to be made.
(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the closure or diversion application is made, and not less than two months before making an order he shall give written notice of his proposal to make the order to the operator and to each local authority in whose area the crossing (or any proposed new crossing) is situated.
(5) A notice given under subsection (4) above must be accompanied by a draft of the proposed order under this section ; and any order eventually made may include modifications of the draft.
(6) An operator shall not be regarded as in breach of a duty imposed by an order under this section if he has used his best endeavours to comply with the order.
(7) Where an operator is required by an order under this section to provide or improve a bridge or tunnel, but is unable to do so because he does not have the powers or rights (including rights over land) needed for the purpose, he shall not be taken to have used his best endeavours to comply with the order unless he has used his best endeavours to obtain those powers or rights (whether by means of an order under section 1 above or otherwise).
(8) In this section--
"bridleway" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 ; "closure or diversion application" means--
(a) an application made under section 6 above, or
(b) a request made in accordance with section 120(3A)(aa) of the Highways Act 1980,
for an order by virtue of which a public right of way would be extinguished or diverted ;
"footpath" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 ; "local authority" means a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London, a parish or community council and a parish meeting of a parish not having a separate parish council ;
"operator", in relation to a railway or tramway, means any person carrying on an undertaking which includes maintaining the permanent way.'.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
| Next Section
| Home Page |