| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 752
Mr. Brooke : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) that there is already a substantial element of broadcasting in the Welsh language. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to enter into a private debate with me on the matter, however, I shall be happy to respond.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Should we not recognise that part of the background to the Green Paper is the serious damage done to broadcasting by the Government's obsession with deregulation, along with the serious damage that resulted from the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the absurd franchise auction that took place then? It is ridiculous to see public sector broadcasting as a ghetto confined to a single channel. The ethos of quality programming should extend across all channels, and the Government must not undermine the other channels as they have done in the past.
Let me put a simple proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. The press in this country is governed by market forces--commercialism--and is held in low esteem throughout the world. Until very recently, broadcasting in this country was governed by principles of democratic regulation and control, and was admired throughout the world. I commend those good socialist principles to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Brooke : I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue that caused the hon. Gentleman to refer to public sector broadcasting instead of to public service broadcasting. I do not share his condemnation of the British press. Large parts of the British press are widely admired. I agree with him about the respect in which British broadcasting is held. The intention of the consultation process is to make sure that that admiration is maintained.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Although I welcome the opportunity to debate the matter, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind my pointing out without any disrespect that there is an alternative to paying a licence fee--that is, not to have to pay a licence fee. Now that we have commercial stations, it is important that people who want to watch them and not the BBC should not be required to pay £80 a year for the privilege of having a television set in their house.
Elderly and poor people, for whom I would expect hon. Members opposite to make a particular case, resent having to pay the licence fee. There is no need for them to do so in the present climate. We know that the commercial outlets will give sponsorship to the BBC and provide money for healthy competition with the commercial channels, which are often alleged to be swimming in the stuff.
Mr. Brooke : I am absolutely sure that, when my hon. Friend, who is fair-minded, sees the references in the discussion document to the potential financing, she will agree that the options have been set out. It is now for the nation to respond in terms of consultation.
Mr. Tony Banks : Is it not a fact that most Members of the Conservative party and Conservative Members of Parliament have already made up their minds? They loathe the BBC, just as they love capital punishment. If the
Column 753
Secretary of State could introduce capital punishment for the producers of "Panorama", those who sit on Conservative Benches would undoubtedly be overjoyed.Will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly that he will publish the results of the consultation exercise, not hide them away? If the great weight of public opinion is that it wants the BBC to remain as it is, will the Secretary of State abide by that decision, or will he give way to the doctrinaire fools behind him?
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman said, "doctrinaire"--
Madam Speaker : I deprecate the use of such language.
Madam Speaker : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is one of the most articulate Members of this House, can find another phrase.
Mr. Banks : What about hon. dimwits, then?
Mr. Brooke : I have long admired the hon. Gentleman's precision of language, although not in this instance. I take issue with his observation that we on this side of the House, to use his phrase, "loathe the BBC." I made it clear in my statement that the BBC has supporters and critics in all parts of the House. That is what makes the debate worth while. I have made it clear in the foreword to the discussion document that I have lived abroad four different times for significant periods and that, as a consequence of that experience, I have a profound admiration for the service that the BBC provides. Several Hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. We shall now move on.
Points of Order
4.17 pm
Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday, in reply to a point of order from the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), you ruled that, when a Minister refers to an official document, that document has to be laid on the Table.
You will be aware that, during the debate on Iraqi exports, the President of the Board of Trade quoted from an official document, and that the matter was raised on a point of order by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He asked whether the ruling that you had made earlier in the day applied, at which stage the
Column 754
Deputy Speaker ruled that the decision had been made that, when a Minister quotes from a "state paper", he must lay it on the Table. That ruling was much narrower than your ruling earlier in the day. I understand, however, that, following a further approach late last evening, you agreed to consider the matter further and to give us your decision today. Is it in order to ask whether you have had time to consider the matter, and whether you can let us know your decision?Madam Speaker : The President of the Board of Trade did quote yesterday from a paper. I can tell the House now that the whole of that document will be laid before the House.
Mr. Derek Conway (Shrewsbury and Atcham) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following yesterday's debate in the House, has the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) sought your permission to make a personal statement to substantiate his allegations that Lord Justice Scott has been "nobbled" by the Government? Many of us believe that he must be prepared to substantiate that scandalous allegation in the Chamber. Has he made such an application?
Madam Speaker : No application has been made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard yesterday's exchange on whether Lord Justice Scott would be compromised by the Government, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said, "Yes, I believe that Lord Justice Scott will be compromised by the Government." I believed it then, I believe it now and, quite frankly, the only reason why the Government are refusing an independent tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 is because they want to participate in setting up a whitewash inquiry.
Madam Speaker : No point of order arises.
Dr. David Clark (South Shields) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recollect that, earlier today during defence questions, I asked a supplementary question to Question 9, in which I raised the arms trade with Iran, which we believe may be illegal. I asked whether Lord Justice Scott's inquiry would cover relations and the arms trade with Iran, to which the Under-Secretary replied in the affirmative. To avoid any confusion, will you confirm that an assurance given to the House by an Under-Secretary overrides any decision or guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker : The Chair makes no comment on the remarks of Ministers, at whatever level. The hon. Gentleman will have to find other means of probing the Government to obtain the information that he is seeking.
Column 755
Development of Tourism for the Disabled
4.21 pm
Mr. Harold Elletson (Blackpool, North) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage provision for tourism by disabled people ; to establish a Council for Tourism for the Disabled ; to ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account in the design of tourist accommodation and transport facilities and infrastructure ; to amend the Development of Tourism Act 1969 ; and for connected purposes.
As the representative of Britain's major tourist resort, I am delighted that so many of my hon. Friends from lesser tourist resorts have decided to remain to listen to my presentation of the Bill. I feel rather like an ocean-going liner surrounded by a flotilla of tugboats.
Every year, millions of people in Britain cannot manage to have a holiday-- sometimes because they cannot afford one or because they are too busy, but often because they suffer from a physical or sensory disability, which makes going on holiday, or even just being on holiday, too difficult. Finding accommodation that can cater for their special needs can be very hard, especially if, like many disabled people, they are poor or old.
Getting to a holiday resort can often cause severe problems for those who use public transport. British Rail's treatment of disabled passengers is often bad, and its recent decision to scrap direct InterCity services between London and Blackpool is evidence of its lack of concern for the thousands of disabled people who visit Britain's major tourist resort every year, many of them by rail. Despite the many problems that are faced every year by disabled people on holiday in this country, there is now much greater recognition of both the problem and the opportunity in developing services to meet their needs. My Bill seeks to establish a framework within which private and public sector efforts to service those needs can be properly co-ordinated.
Some of my hon. Friends will know that, like the President of the Board of Trade, I am what might best be described as a pre-prandial interventionist. I believe that there are occasions when Governments should intervene before breakfast, before lunch and before tea. The development of tourism for the disabled is precisely such an occasion.
Much has already been done in this sphere. The English tourist board's "Tourism for All" campaign has helped to publicise the special needs of disabled tourists, and to encourage hotels and attractions to cater for them. Building regulations have brought improvements in the design of facilities for many types of disabled people. The national and regional tourist boards, together with organisations such as the Holiday Care Service, have begun to develop a system of information about accommodation, travel and entertainment facilities for disabled people. So good are some of the British initiatives that they have even been praised by the European Commission.
Despite these worthy initiatives, there is a long way to go. British tourism is still far from meeting the needs of the disabled, and it has not begun to seize the commercial opportunity in catering for them. There are 6.5 million disabled people in this country--one in seven of the population --with some form of physical or sensory
Column 756
disability. In the whole of Europe, about 50 million people suffer from some disability. Apart from anything else, that is a significant commercial opportunity.We must now build on what we have achieved and aim to turn Britain into a centre of excellence in the provision of tourism for the disabled. To do that, we need to co-ordinate action from both the public and private sectors. That is why the Bill calls for a little light intervention in the form of a Council for Tourism for the Disabled. Such a council would be able to develop further the "Tourism for All" campaign by promoting more extensively the commercial opportunities for businesses that can cater for disabled people.
The council would undertake a national disability audit of Britain's tourist facilities so that accurate and comprehensive information was available for people with every type of disability and special need, not just those who need wheelchair access. Most importantly, the council would be responsible for the design of a national strategy for the development of tourism for the disabled. To create that strategy, the council would harness the resources of the private sector and of voluntary organisations, in much the same way as has already happened with initiatives such as the ADAPT scheme--Access for Disabled People to Arts Premises Today. The council would work with Government Departments whose responsibilities have an impact on the disabled tourist. It would work not only with the Departments of National Heritage and Transport, but with the Departments of the Environment, Employment, Health and Social Security.
The council's aim would be to develop high standards, quality and choice. It would seek to ensure that the needs of every type of disabled person were fully taken into account in the design of everything from accommodation and transport to promotion material and even to railway timetables.
I cannot resist a little more intervention. If we are to encourage the private sector in England to participate in the development of tourism for the disabled on the scale that is necessary in the middle of a recession, the Government must allow for some grant aid or cheap loans for suitable projects.
In Scotland and Wales, grants for the development of tourism under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 still apply. Businesses that want to upgrade their facilities to cater for disabled visitors do not have such a problem there. However, section 4 no longer applies in England. The Bill would remove that imbalance specifically and exclusively in the provision of tourism for the disabled by reintroducing an element of discretionary support for suitable projects in England.
The key to the development of tourism for the disabled must be a partnership, at both national and local levels. In Blackpool, we have a range of accommodation for people with various types of disability. Much of it is good, and the quality of service provided is first class. However, there is a great deal more that we can do. I have set up a small working group of organisations and businesses to create a partnership that could help to bring about real improvements in the service that Blackpool offers disabled visitors. I am sure that Blackpool's experience will serve, as it so often does, as a model for other, perhaps lesser, resorts. Equally, I hope
Column 757
that a national Council for Tourism for the Disabled will create the kind of partnership that will greatly improve tourism for the disabled in Britain.Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Matthew Banks, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.
Development of Tourism for the Disabled
Mr. Harold Elletson accordingly presented a Bill to encourage provision for tourism by disabled people ; to establish a Council for Tourism for the Disabled ; to ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account in the design of tourist accommodation and transport facilities and infrastructure ; to amend the Development of Tourism Act 1969 ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 89.]
Column 758
Orders of the Day
European Communities
[Relevant documents : European Community Documents Nos. 6027/92, relating to outside staff and transfer of administrative appropriations from Part B to Part A of the Community Budget, 8286/92, relating to the fight against fraud against the Community Budget in 1991, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by H.M. Treasury on 13th March 1992, relating to discharge of the 1990 Community Budget and Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 2/92, relating to export refunds paid to selected major traders in the milk products sector ; also the Memorandum submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on Prospects for the Edinburgh European Council.]
4.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd) : On 2 July we debated the agenda for the British presidency, which I outlined to the House. I said that it was an ambitious programme containing six key elements : GATT ; the completion of the single market ; the future financing of the Community ; enlargement ; subsidiarity ; and the Danish proposals on the Maastricht treaty . We have made progress on all those matters and we want to make that progress decisive when the European Council meets at Holyrood house on 11 and 12 December.
The Edinburgh meeting will have one of the heaviest agendas of any European Council in recent years. About one third of the Councils scheduled for our presidency will be held in the next four weeks. Foreign and Finance Ministers will meet this Friday, 27 November, and Foreign Ministers will hold a further conclave on 8 December. Meetings are not magic, but, alas, they are a condition of progress. The past five months represent one of the most turbulent periods in the Community's history. We have experienced the general economic downturn across the world, the stormy French referendum, the volatility of the currency markets, the GATT dispute and instability in the east of our continent.
Out of the list of matters that I mentioned in July for our work programme, two massive achievements for Europe and for Britain are now emerging as reality--not yet secure but increasingly clear. I mean, of course, a GATT agreement and the completion of the single market. Both are the culmination of the work of several years.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in connection with the single market, 3,000 freight forwarders and customs clearance agents, many of them in my constituency, are likely to lose their jobs between 31 December and April next year. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that on the agenda for the Euro-summit in Edinburgh are measures advanced by the European Commission, which I hope will be supported by the British Government, to give assistance to members of the freight forwarding and customs clearance industry in Dover?
Mr. Hurd : There is a retraining programme, which was discussed yesterday by Finance Ministers. I shall ask my
Column 759
right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give my hon. Friend further precise information about it. My hon. Friend is on to a good point about something which is, indeed, part of the programme. I was talking about the two massive achievements now coming into sight--the GATT agreement and the completion of the single market. If we can bring them to reality they will substantially contradict the theory, which one now reads all the time, that the age of reasoned co-operation is gone and that Europe and the world are sinking into inevitable disorder and slump. If the GATT agreement or the completion of the single market were to fail, we would be closer to a dark age.The Munich Group of Seven summit and the Birmingham European Council both called for the GATT agreement to be concluded by the end of the year. We are nearer to that goal than those who set it probably expected at the time. The House knows of the agreement on 20 November by the European Commission negotiators and their American counterparts on a range of outstanding differences. The Commission gave its unanimous backing to the agreement last Friday.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement about the agreement to the House yesterday, so I need not go into detail, but the way is now clear for negotiations to resume in Geneva among all parties to the GATT. Senior negotiators are meeting there today and tomorrow to fix the timetable for completing that work. I do not think that a final settlement will be ready by the time of the Edinburgh Council, but I am sure that the Heads of Government will welcome the progress that has been made towards the aim that they set in Birmingham of reaching a settlement this year. The agreement is clearly in the interests of both Europe and America. We have not been asked to make some artificial choice between Europe and the Atlantic. With our encouragement, during our presidency the Commission has negotiated on behalf of Europe. The relationship with the United States is of critical importance to the Community, as they have guaranteed our security for half a century and their presence in Europe remains vital. However, Europe must define itself on its merits and not by excluding our American allies. That is why one of the most important events in our presidency will be the EC-US summit in the second half of December, at which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will represent the Community. The second great achievement on the way is the biggest free trade project in history--the single market. It is much more ambitious than the creation of a conventional free trade area, with about 300 pieces of common legislation to replace thousands of national regulations and with common competition rules to govern the market. It will expand opportunities for British business and British consumers and should mean lower prices, increased efficiency and the end of routine border controls for goods.
Inherent in the single market is a large extension of freedom for our citizens. For example, 11,000 British students are studying under the European Community action scheme for the mobility of university students-- the ERASMUS programme--in other Community countries. During coming years there will be a steady fall in air fares, which will make travel cheaper and easier. That is what we sometimes call the "citizens' Europe".
Those are the detailed measures which will make sense of the Community in the eyes of practical people. We must
Column 760
ensure that business and citizens know about, and take advantage of, the many benefits and opportunities that the single market will create.Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : Does the Secretary of State accept that what ordinary citizens are looking for most is to find work in a Europe where unemployment is increasing? In view of the trend during the past few months for the public sector borrowing requirement to increase in Britain, and the fact that Mr. Delors said that a massively reflationary kick-start package might be put forward, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it might be increasingly difficult for us to meet the long-term aim of the Maastricht treaty, which is that there should be a 3 per cent. limit on the amount of gross domestic product allowed to go to the PSBR?
Mr. Hurd : I do not agree, but, before I close, I shall come to yesterday's discussions on the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The completion of the single market has been central to our presidency. We were in the forefront of those who designed the project and we intend to bring it to fruition. Political agreement has been reached on a series of directives to do that : on value added tax, and excise duties ; on life insurance ; on pharmaceuticals ; and we shall be looking for agreements on Community trade marks, and on animal and plant health, which are the last agreements necessary.
Completing the single market is not an exact science. Some of the measures in the original White Paper by Lord Cockfield are now given a lower priority, while others that were not in the White Paper have been carried through. We have not seen the end of the liberalising of areas such as telecommunications and parts of the energy market, but we believe that it will be possible to declare at the Edinburgh Council the single market open for business on time at the end of the year.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross) : Does my right hon. Friend believe that we have simplified all of those matters? Can he explain why the papers for today's debate, which is only a "take note" motion, weigh 4.6 kg?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : What is that in pounds?
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : I was translating for the benefit of the Europeans.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, having read them, I do not believe there is a lawyer in the House, far less a human being in Europe, who understands them? If he seriously thinks that this is all about a love- in between people, may I ask him to say what France is about?
Mr. Hurd : The weight of paper derives from the demands of the House to have a proper care for what is going on. What we are dealing with, and what my right hon. Friend will deal with in detail when replying to the debate, is the future financing of the Community, all aspects of its expenditure and the budget for next year, and I accept that such matters in any organisation give rise to weighty documents. I am delighted that my hon. and learned Friend has mastered them and I hope that he will tell us about them later. I assure him that the weight of documents derives from the enthusiasm of the House to keep an eye on what Ministers do in the Council of Ministers, in particular in deciding how much of our money the Community should spend.
Column 761
I was dealing with the single market. We have been talking about the virtual completion of the legislative phase, but we go on to the phase of compliance, enforcement and access for redress for those who run into difficulties in exercising their rights.Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) rose --
Mr. Hurd : I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I really must make progress.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the rumour that in future we shall take almost as relaxed a view as is taken by our southern counterparts towards the implementation of regulations and directives?
Mr. Hurd : I am aware of the rumour to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am certainly not in favour of the relaxed implementation of rules. When rules are agreed--they need not of themselves be greatly detailed-- they should be implemented. That is one reason why-- Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose --
Mr. Hurd : I said that I would try to make progress.
As I was saying, that is one reason why the CBI recently emphasised the importance of ratifying the treaty of Maastricht.
Mr. Budgen rose --
Mr. Hurd : I have given way several times. I promise to give way to my hon. Friend later.
The treaty will, for the first time, equip the European Court of Justice with the teeth needed to ensure that member states live up to the obligations that they assume. That element is fundamental in establishing the level playing field in Europe which every British company says that it wants.
Mr. Budgen : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was an authoritative leak in The Times -- [Interruption.] --or it may have been in The Daily Telegraph, to the effect that a Minister had stated that it would be the policy in future of the British Government to take a southern European attitude towards the implementation of law? That sort of behaviour would be likely to spin off into a disregard of British law as well.
Mr. Hurd : I always thought that my hon. Friend was an opponent and critic of bureaucracy. What we are aiming at, in relation to what he quoted, are cases where officials in Whitehall take decisions made in Brussels and carry them through in excessive detail. That is known in the jargon as Bookerism, after the journalist who identified that ill. Christopher Booker is strongly against the European Community, but, being an honest journalist, he has spotted that much of the regulation is derived not from the Community but from the itch of Whitehall to insert its own bureaucratic instincts into the process. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) for enabling me to make the point clear. Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Hurd : I really must get on, because many hon. Members wish to speak.
Column 762
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) rose --Mr. Hurd : This must be the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Dr. Cunningham : I have heard of the seven-year itch--as the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the itch in Whitehall--but this is a 14-year itch. The Conservatives have been in office for 14 years. Have they suddenly discovered that the problem exists in Whitehall ?
Mr. Hurd : If, in the fulness of time, the hon. Gentleman assumes office, he will know that the itch is permanent--that there is always an instinct among energetic and ambitious officials to push regulation and control that extra inch. It is an itch which Labour Members have constantly encouraged, which is one reason why they are always rejected by the British people.
I have referred to the two big achievements that are on the way. The third issue is the future financing of the Community. A review in that context would have been necessary, with or without Maastricht, and the Paymaster General will say more about that when he replies to the debate. I wish to comment on the review of financing. The Community budget amounts to about £45 billion, which is about 2.2 per cent. of general government spending in the Community. Britain is the second largest net contributor after Germany. We are expected to make a net contribution of about £1.7 billion, after our rebate, in the present calendar year. France is also a net contributor, with Italy now broadly in balance.
We have made some progress in the negotiations since the Commission first tabled its proposals in February. Our aim is to reach a settlement at Edinburgh, though that will not be easy. Several member states have, unsurprisingly, sought to challenge the United Kingdom abatement. We have made it clear to our partners--firmly, though I hope quietly--that we shall not accept any adverse change to it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor did that again yesterday and on the radio this morning.
Maintaining our abatement remains an overriding objective. It is a manifesto pledge. It can be altered only by unanimity, and if others persist in challenging aspects of it, there will not be an agreement. The House may recall how ambitious--
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) rose --
Mr. Hurd : I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I really must get on.
Mr. Robertson : I have a most important point to raise with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hurd : Very well, and then I shall have to make progress.
Mr. Robertson : In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said in absolute terms in relation to the British abatement--this is an extremely serious matter--may I remind him that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the Radio 4 "Today" programme was not what the Foreign Secretary just said? The Chancellor said that "no serious or significant" change in the British abatement would be acceptable. That is not what the Foreign Secretary said. Is the British abatement negotiable, or is it not?
| Next Section
| Home Page |