| Home Page |
Column 377
Redundancies (Pendle)
3.32 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing an urgent and important matter, namely, "the 574 redundancies announced in Pendle yesterday."
Smith and Nephew is one of the largest employers in Pendle. Yesterday's decision to sack 574 people will reduce the work force by half in an area in which unemployment levels are already grotesquely high. We need to explore urgently any possible way of retrieving the position.
The matter is specific. It involves a decision of Smith and Nephew to pull out of denim manufacturing completely. That means that, when the decision is taken through, Britain will no longer be capable of producing denim cloth. That is staggering when one considers the number of fashion products that are made from denim cloth. I am not necessarily talking about imports from the far east. Forty per cent. of imports of denim cloth into the United Kingdom come from the European Community--Germany and Ireland--and from other high-cost producers such as the United States.
Why are we faced with a further contraction of the textile industry in my constituency? The issue is of national significance. The redundancies will have a devastating impact locally, but they will have an enormous impact throughout Lancashire where the textile industry is losing the critical mass to continue as an effective manufacturing industry.
The matter is of national significance because it will cost the Exchequer £5,166,000 in dole payments and social security payments to offset the cost to people who were gainfully employed. It is also of national significance because it throws into high relief the supine attitude of the Government to protect the textile industry in the GATT negotiations and their complacency to allow a vital part of the manufacturing industry to go down the pan. That is an important reason why we should have an urgent debate on the matter.
Madam Speaker : The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the 574 redundancies announced in Pendle yesterday."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said about the decision of Smith and Nephew to close its denim-making plant at Colne, with the loss of 574 jobs. I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Column 378
Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : May I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker, on two issues relating to a matter which has recently come to my attention? I have notified the Members involved that I intended to raise the matter on the Floor of the House this afternoon. It has come to my attention that Sheffield city council subsidises the constituency offices of four Sheffield Members--the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts)-- [Interruption.] --
Madam Speaker : Order. The matter which the hon. Gentleman is raising with me arises under Standing Order No. 128, which provides for complaints relating to the registration of interests. That must be considered by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman, and any other hon. Member who might be interested in such matters in the future, that such complaints should not be made to me on the Floor of the House. The subject should be raised immediately with the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take that course of action now.
Mr. Riddick : I am grateful to you for pointing that out to me, Madam Speaker ; I take that point on board entirely. I wish to raise another issue on which I should like your guidance. I was going to point out that the Sheffield Members are being subsidised to the tune of--
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must accept my guidance. Mr. Riddick rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. Is it a separate point?
Mr. Riddick : It is an entirely different point, Madam Speaker. I am pointing out, so that people may know the background, that Sheffield Members are being subsidised to the tune of £55,000--
Madam Speaker : Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order to raise with me, I am prepared to listen to it ; but it must be directed to me.
Mr. Riddick : I should like to ask you for guidance on the propriety of Members of Parliament receiving additional public money for constituency offices.
Madam Speaker : Order. This is an abuse of the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to question 1 on the Order Paper today, tabled by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). The question refers to "the north". It became clear during his question that he was referring to the north of England, which is, of course, to the south of Scotland and largely to the south of Northern Ireland. I do not intend any criticism of the hon. Member for Hartlepool because I am sure that he used the word in shorthand, but perhaps when such questions are tabled and accepted people could look at them more closely so that they are not misleading.
Madam Speaker : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sometimes guilty of regarding myself as coming from "the north" and representing "the midlands".
Column 379
Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the second time this week a Conservative Member has launched a campaign against an Opposition Member. On Monday the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) without telling him that she intended to refer to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) is chairing the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and has asked me to speak on his behalf. He has been accused by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) when he cannot be here. It is a carefully chosen time. This is an orchestrated campaign. The protocol of the House is that Members should give notice that they intend to refer to other Members. This is a plot by Conservative Members.
Mr. Riddick rose--
Madam Speaker : Order. I shall hear no more on that matter. I have heard one point of order from either side, and I shall now move on.
Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time a Minister used abusive and unparliamentary language, and I apologise for not telling him that I intended to raise the matter. At the time, you said that you were temporarily distracted and that you were sure that the remark was made in good humour. I must draw your attention to the fact that it was certainly not regarded as good-humoured. Will you reflect upon the possibility that Members, and especially Ministers, having hurled abusive remarks, will further abuse the system and defend themselves by pretending that it was done in good humour?
Madam Speaker : I said at the time that I was distracted, as I think the House could see. From the reaction of the House, it seemed to me that the remark was taken in jest, and I hope that the matter can rest there.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask for your general guidance about a matter that I wish to refer to one of the Committees of the House? At the weekend, 14 members of the Conservative party were accused by a member of the shadow Cabinet of having their votes bought--
Madam Speaker : Order. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I do not give procedural advice across the Floor of the House. If he needs such advice, he should come to see me and he will be advised correctly.
Column 380
Small Aircraft (Insurance)
3.41 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require owners and operators of small aircraft to carry third-party insurance ; and for connected purposes.
The measure is limited, but nevertheless is common sense and it is important, as it will fill a loophole in aviation law by requiring the operators and pilots of small and microlight aircraft to maintain minimum third-party or passenger liability insurance. That would lessen the consequences of accidents, provide security for people who live near aerodromes and have an impact on the irresponsible few who do not bother to take out third-party insurance.
During the past few years there has been a significant increase in the number of small aircraft, and of microlight aircraft in particular. The British Microlight Aircraft Association told me that it has 3,800 members with 3,500 machines and that the number is growing significantly all the time. The Civil Aviation Authority told me that it has 11,000 small aircraft on its register, 7,400 of which are relatively small and weigh less than 273 kg.
The growth of the sport is welcomed, especially in my constituency where a microlight airfield has grown up during the past year, provided that its environmental consequences can be controlled and local people can be assured that, should there be an accident, they are likely to be able to gain compensation, through insurance, from those responsible.
Under present legislation, the Civil Aviation Authority requires people who ply aircraft for hire or fly them for commercial purposes to have third- party insurance. The noble Lord Caithness recently told me that European Community licensing regulation 2407/92, which came into force in this country on 1 January, requires insurance for passengers, luggage, cargo, mail and third parties if operating licences are to be granted to people flying commercially. I also understand that gliders are required to have third party insurance. However, under present law, hobby flyers--people with small aircraft who do not ply them for hire--are not required to have any insurance for passenger liability or third parties. I believe that that should be put right.
There is no legal requirement to take out such insurance despite the fact that, according to the recent letter from Lord Caithness, section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 imposes upon pilots and fliers an absolute liability to pay compensation to people who are injured or where property is damaged on the ground as a result of their activities.
Thankfully, accidents are relatively rare. The CAA tells me that, since 1988, the average annual accident rate for aircraft weighing less than 2,301 kg, excluding microlight aircraft and helicopters, has ranged between 215 and 230. Those figures are relatively small, but, in absolute terms, they are significant. There are about 200 accidents a year involving microlight aircraft, of which between 10 and 30 are major ones and, in the past 10 years, they have caused, on average, between two and 10 fatalities a year.
In one sense, the Government recognise the problem because they have recently encouraged the CAA to distribute 10,000 copies of an updated leaflet on insurance which encourages fliers and owners to take out
"very substantial third party insurance for claims of up to £1 million or more."
Column 381
Despite that message and the logical demand that third-party insurance should be available, as it is for cars, for all aircraft, the Government have refused to act. They have refused to act despite demands for safety and the long-running campaign by the CAA-- supported by the British Microlight Aircraft Association--for such insurance to be compulsory under statute. They have refused to act despite the fact that the vast majority of non-microlight owners and fliers and two thirds of microlight fliers take out some form of third party insurance--it is not terribly expensive and costs between £80 and £200 a year.The Government's refusal to act now is based on their argument that to introduce a compulsory, statutory system of third-party insurance would be, again according to the letter from Lord Caithness, "administratively cumbersome and expensive." I do not believe that that is right, nor do the CAA and the British Microlight Aircraft Association.
The CAA has told me that it would be easy to introduce such insurance through its existing registration system for aircraft, which is updated annually. It would be easy to make that registration conditional upon proof of third party insurance. Similarly, the British Microlight Aircraft Association, on behalf of the CAA, has to grant a certificate of validation to individual microlights every year. The chief executive of that association literally told me a few moments ago that to combine third-party insurance certificates with its annual certificates of validation would be "administratively no problem at all." That refutes the argument of Lord Caithness that such a scheme would be "administratively cumbersome and expensive." My Bill, whose scope is limited, is a common-sense measure, which would require people to have third-party insurance, possibly even passenger liability insurance. What fliers do to themselves in the course of pursuing their hobby is up to them, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that their activities do not damagingly impinge on innocent parties who might otherwise be affected. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Simon Burns, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. David Porter, Mr. Keith Vaz, Ms. Estelle Morris, Mr. James Pawsey and Mr. Rod Richards.
Small Aircraft (Insurance)
Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to require owners and operators of small aircraft to carry third-party insurance ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 February and to be printed. [Bill 116].
Column 382
Orders of the Day
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 January]
[Mr. Michael Morris
in the Chair ]
Clause 1
Treaty on European Union
Amendment proposed, [20 January], No. 6, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
(except Articles 126 and 127 on page 32 of Cm 1934)'.-- [Mr. Tony Lloyd.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : I remind the Committee that with this we are also considering the following amendments : No. 193, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 3(p)'.
No. 199, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 57(2) on page 13 of Cm 1934'.
No. 212, in page, 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 127(2) on page 32 of Cm 1934'.
No. 365, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert
except Article 57 as referred to in Article G on page 13 of Command Paper number 1934'.
No. 52, in page 1, line 10, after 1992', insert
but not Article 126 in Title II thereof'.
Sir Richard Body : A number of important issues arise from the articles. I hazard a guess that you, Mr. Morris, selected some of the amendments, as they were of a probing nature. A number of questions arise which have not yet been put to the Minister. He may be aware of the article that appeared on 18 September last year in the journal Education, in which Mr. Delors was quoted. Anyone reading the quotation--no doubt many of those in the teaching profession did so--would have felt apprehensive about the Commission's intentions. Mr. Delors clearly said that every European must-- not ought to--have the same educational route. That seems to be a denial of the principle of subsidiarity. When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate, it would be helpful if he would say how he interprets those words, and how the Government's representative in the Council of Ministers, will react when proposals are made by the Commission in accordance with the powers that the Commission will soon be granted under the treaty-- [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend the Minister wish to intervene?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones) : No
Sir Richard Body : I hope that my right hon. Friend will say a little more about what he understands the term "education of quality" means, when linked, as it is in the context of one of the articles, with culture. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, the larger the country or unit, the lower standards of education tend to be? It was said last night that Scotland has, for a long time, had a tradition of providing higher standards of education than England.
Column 383
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : But it does not have higher educational standards than Northern Ireland, which has retained its grammar schools.
Sir Richard Body : We are treading old ground. We discussed that matter last night, and we must not go over old ground ; otherwise you, Mr. Morris, will intervene--and we do not want that.
In both contemporary and historical terms, the smaller countries have given more to the world in terms of culture than the larger ones. That has been the case in our country both historically and in contemporary times, and there are a number of other such examples around the world. If we are to have common educational and cultural policies and schemes, there is a great danger that standards will fall, because culture and education should be judged qualitatively, not quantitively. That means value judgments, which can be made with unanimity only if there is some homogeneity--and that is manifestly lacking in Europe. It may always be lacking, because the great wealth of Europe is not material so much as the rich diversity of its culture. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that point, and also assure us that he does not share the view of Mr. Delors Amendment No. 199 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who, as the House knows, is suffering from flu. Unfortunately, he has not been able to be here as much as we or he would have wished. The amendment relates to article 57, paragraph 2. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one vital word--"shall". The paragraph says, "the Council shall". There is to be no option, no discussion ; it is a mandatory instruction to the Commission to introduce legislation under article 189 of the treaty of Rome--which, as we all know, bypasses this House.
Yet again, we come to subsidiarity. How will my right hon. Friend or his successor judge such a serious matter in the Council of Ministers? Thousands, if not millions, of self-employed people in this country could be affected.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Does my hon. Friend again accept that paragraph 2 does not apply to everyone--there is no question of everyone being affected--but only to "natural persons"? Until we can get our right hon. Friend the Minister to explain what that means, we do not know what category or percentage of people will be covered by that paragraph.
Sir Richard Body : I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that point. I also hope that he will deal with the matter of majority voting. Millions of self-employed people will have their lives redirected because of majority voting in the Council of Ministers. That is made perfectly clear in the first half of paragraph 2.
In the second half, after the full stop, there is a reference to unanimity. However, unanimity in a decision by the Council of Ministers appears to apply only if a member state has already introduced and passed legislation concerning the affairs of the self-employed. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with that point with some care. There are hundreds of self -employed people in his constituency, in mine and in all others. My constituents, like his, want to know where they stand.
Has my right hon. Friend investigated whether there is already on the statute book legislation concerning the self-employed that would enable us to veto any legislation
Column 384
proposed by the Commission under that article? The matter affects possibly millions of British people, so I hope that it has already been carefully considered by those who advise my right hon. Friend. I hope that they have the answers to my questions ready, and that they will have already briefed him on this important matter.If the unanimity rule applies, should not we consider at this stage whether it would be wise to introduce legislation to safeguard the interests of the self-employed in future ? Unless we do that fairly promptly, we shall, as I understand it, forgo any opportunity to veto legislation by the Council of Ministers governing the lives of our self-employed constituents.
Mr. Marlow : My hon. Friend is talking about training, but we are also concerned with education, and he will be aware that article 126(4) says that changes with regard to recommendation can be produced on the basis of a qualified majority but only on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. The Commission is in the driving seat. The Commission is the only--
The Chairman : Order. I made it clear yesterday that hon. Members should ask one succinct question. The hon. Gentleman has asked that. 4 pm
Sir Richard Body : As always, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have learnt that that is how the Commission works. That is how great quantities of legislation are churned out. That is the result of article 189 of the treaty of Rome. Those of us who opposed it many years ago may feel that our position was justified.
Amendment No. 212, also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, excludes article 127(2). There are important questions to be answered. That paragraph hands over to Brussels considerable activities concerning vocational training. We discussed some of the details at length last night, and I shall not repeat them. But one question above all arises, and that is that the article suggests that there should be co-operation between European countries on vocational training. That is a fine idea, which I support.
I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), is to reply. I want to ask him why on earth, all these years, we have failed to use the services offered for vocational training by the Economic Commission for Europe. As my right hon. Friend must know, it sits in Geneva and is in a position to do a great deal for Europe. When I say "Europe", I mean all Europe, not just 12 countries. The Economic Commission for Europe has around the table representatives of all 35 countries of Europe. It has the power and the mechanisms necessary to co-ordinate the activity which the Government now appear to consider desirable.
Why have we not used the Economic Commission for Europe ? If my right hon. Friend is a true European, as I am, and therefore believes that Europe consists of 35 countries, not just 12, here is an opportunity to bring round the conference table and to co-operate with countries beyond the 12. Surely among them, just as much as among ourselves--more so, indeed--there is a need for such co-operation.
It is sad that the Foreign Office has put the brakes on the Economic Commission for Europe. If it had not been
Column 385
for its antipathy, I have not the slightest doubt that the Economic Commission for Europe could do a great deal more for the benefit of Britain and for all of Europe. I hope that, in reply, my right hon. Friend will explain why we have not been able to use the services of that European institution in recent years.Amendment No. 365 is in the name of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). No doubt he will have various questions to ask if he catches your eye, Mr. Morris, but I shall ask just one. The amendment would enable mutual recognition of various formal qualifications. In our language, "mutual" implies the existence of two parties. Does the wording mean that, within the Community, two countries may agree to recognise each other's qualifications, or does it mean much more than that--that qualifications will be agreed throughout the Community?
I shall not go over old ground, but it was pointed out last night that in some countries professional qualifications are of a lower standard. I hope that no lowering of standards will result. May we have an assurance about that and may we also be assured that, under the article--it is not a bad article, in my opinion--mutual recognition in the ordinary sense of the word will be possible? Many people in this country believe that we have much in common with certain other countries in regard to professional qualifications : I am thinking especially of Germany, Denmark and, of course, Ireland.
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) : Article 57 states : "In the case of the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, the progressive abolition of restrictions shall be dependent upon co-ordination of the conditions for their exercise in the various Member States."
Is it not interesting that, in matters of life and death, the absurd nonesense of trying to homogenise all the rules and regulations remains at the discretion of nation states? Should not that guiding rule apply to all recognitions of qualifications?
Sir Richard Body : As ever, I agree with my hon. Friend. I only hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will agree as well ; he is not quite a lost cause, but I am not over-optimistic about my chances of persuading him.
Amendment No. 52 also raises a number of questions. The phrase "quality education", for instance, seems to limit the concept of education. Why is that? Are we embarking on another value judgment, and is that judgment to be made in Brussels or elsewhere? Have we completely forgotten about the principle of subsidiarity? In the treaty, we ask Brussels to support my right hon. Friend in matters of education. What kind of support does he seek?
The article also contains the word "supplementary". What supplement is needed? Are we conceding to the Opposition Front Bench that much is lacking in the provisions for educational and vocational training? I hope that we shall be given a clear explanation of the meaning of the word, and of why it is used.
The article provides for an exchange of information. The Economic Commission for Europe already performs that function, and is willing to expand it in respect of 35 European countries. Why is such duplication necessary? The treaty uses the phrase "European dimension". Does it
Column 386
mean Europe in the true sense of all 35 countries, or does it mean only the 12? Surely we are missing an opportunity--the Economic Commission for Europe has the resources, facilities, expertise, mechanisms and committees already established but we are failing to use them. It is a criticism of the Government that they have failed to support the Economic Commission for Europe because, I fear, they are so besotted with what happens in Brussels.Sir Teddy Taylor : My hon. Friend kindly referred to an amendment which I hope to move and to speak to shortly. Does he agree that the basic point, which I hope to illustrate, is that the words "quality of education" mean exactly what the Commission decides? In other words, it can introduce any directives as long as it believes that they refer to the quality of education. Basically, it can do what it likes, and it is a waste of time looking for a definition, because there is not one.
Sir Richard Body : I fear that my hon. Friend is right. As lawyers say, obiter dicta. Mr. Jacques Delors, whom I admire because he is frank and honest--unlike some others--has said that all Europeans must follow the same educational route, which is why I am suspicious of the fact that we are handing powers to Brussels. We may have better education as a result, but I would rather that we had our own education system and powers to decide our own practices. I fear that we are on the way to giving away that ability.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : The hon. Gentleman's comments on Mr. Delors will be echoed by many of my colleagues. Mr. Delors makes it perfectly clear what he, as President of the Commission, wants to do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) should also be congratulated on making it clear that he wants a federal Europe, and that it is the pro-Maastricht people who are not so frank, especially those among the Tory Members, who should be condemned?
| Next Section
| Home Page |