| Home Page |
Column 157
British Rail (Financial Objectives)
3.31 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the new financial objectives for British Rail. As you will know, this important matter has in the past been the subject of statements to the House so that hon. Members on both sides might question the Minister concerned. On this occasion, there is to be a 23 per cent. cut in grants to British Rail, as well as the lowest level of investment since nationalisation in 1948, yet the statement of new objectives is to be buried in the written reply to a planted question from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Has there been any request for a statement? Can you, Madam Speaker, protect the interests of the House?
Madam Speaker : As I have informed the House--I do so on regular occasions--whether a Minister makes an announcement by way of a statement at the Dispatch Box or by means of a written reply is up to the Minister himself. The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I have not had any request for a ministerial statement today.
Column 158
Transplantation of Human Organs
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Committee chaired by the late Sir Hector Maclennan and the report on Medical Research and Health of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology relating to the transplant of human organs.
The purpose of this Bill is to allow hospitals to take the organs of anyone, other than people who have contracted out during their lifetime, through the central computer at Bristol. If legislation along these lines were achieved, we should avoid very difficult personal decisions being made at the point of maximum grief. These decisions have to be taken quickly as organs begin to deteriorate within half an hour.
This goes back a long way. In the 1970s I attempted on eight occasions to introduce similar legislation. In those days it was supported by Miss Mervyn Pike, who was the chairman of the Conservative health committee, by Col. Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, who was a doctor deeply involved in the subject, and by the late and not forgotten Dr. Anthony Trafford, a distinguished Conservative Member of Parliament and renal transplant surgeon.
I have among the sponsors today some of those in the House who know most about these matters, including my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), a professor of neuro-surgery, for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who is a doctor, and other colleagues who have taken a deep interest in these delicate matters. In the summer of 1969 I did a survey of 1,000 families in the then West Lothian constituency on the ground that people would talk more willingly to a known Member of Parliament than to pollsters. Of those surveyed, 364 would have gone for opting-out ; 312 said yes to opting-out but preferred the voluntary or card system to be given a proper chance first, there were 208 "don't knows", and the balance of 116 were against, including three state registered nurses who wanted resources for simple operations such as hernias before transplant surgery.
Even at that time there was a good deal of support for the opting-out system which, with qualifications, has been recommended by the distinguished surgeon who was the father of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), one of the sponsors of my Bill. Even though it had the personal support of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the legislation which I proposed then was objected to chiefly by Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, and his Department.
I do not in any way belittle the seriousness of those who oppose the Bill because, as the Minister knows, I went to the Department of Health and he courteously gave me an interview and explained that a number of surgeons, held in high regard by the Department, were unhappy about the element of compulsion. So it does the case that I put forward no service to pretend that there is not some serious opposition.
On the other hand, there is strong and powerful medical support. What has prompted me to try the ten-minute Bill procedure is the report of the Government's own committee, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology, entitled "A Report on Medical Research and Health" published with the imprimatur of the Cabinet Office, which says :
Column 159
"Organ transplantation :Through progress in surgical techniques, reinforced by the development of effective immunosuppressants and anti-biotics, effective transplantation of organs (kidney, hearts, liver, cornea) and cells (bone marrow) over the past forty years has been a major achievement of 20th century medicine.
Kidney transportation is now the treatment of choice for end-stage renal failure, and bone marrow transplantation has become the preferred treatment for some forms of leukaemia and marrow aplasia. Apart from bone marrow transplantation, cellular transplantation is a relatively new concept but is likely to have an important role in the future as growth factors and new knowledge of cellular biology allow specialised cells to be grown and manipulated in vitro by genetic modification."
Then we come to the crunch of the report :
"Although the technologies are available, the full benefits to patients which can be achieved are not being realised because of our shortage of organs for transplantation. While the number of transplants in the first half of 1992 significantly exceeded that in the same period of 1991, less than one fifth of possible recipients received kidney transplants. Since past measures to increase organ supply have failed, radical actions need to be considered." Dr. Peter Doyle, chairman of the council's medical research and health committee, is quoted in The Independent as saying that in 1991 not one single kidney transplant was achieved through the card system. A lot of us carry our cards, but in the whole year it apparently achieved precisely nothing.
So to the recommendation of the Government's own report : "We recommend therefore that the health departments enhance the number of organs available and investigate mechanisms to introduce an opt-out system similar to those operating in Belgium, France and Austria."
"Action",
it says :
"Health Departments to introduce an opt-out system for organ donation."
This ten-minute Bill does not encapsulate anything that is out of the way or in any way maverick. It simply seeks to face up to what we all know, from our constituencies, are very sad cases of desperate need for some kind of matching tissue, tissue which far too often goes up in the incinerator of the crematorium. It is for these reasons--humane reasons and reasons of medicine--that I hope not only that the House will give a hearing to the Bill but, far more important, because we know that ten-minute Bills are kite-flyers, that some kind of action will be taken within the next 12 months to deal with an acute situation in which there is an ever greater shortage--it increased by 7 per cent. last year--of matching human organs.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tam Dalyell, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Winston Churchill, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Max Madden, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Alfred Morris and Ms Dawn Primarolo.
Transplantation of Human Organs
Mr. Tam Dalyell accordingly presented a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Committee chaired by the late Sir Hector Maclennan and the report on Medical Research and Health of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology relating to the transplant of human organs : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 April, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]
Column 160
Orders of the Day
European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Considered in Committee [Progress, 25 March]
[Mr. Michael Morris
in the Chair ]
Clause 1
Treaty on European Union
Amendment proposed [25 March] : No. 227, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 238'.-- [Mr. Richard Shepherd] Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
3.43 pm
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris) : I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following : Amendment No. 231, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 228'. Amendment No. 232, in page 1, line 9, after II', insert except Article 228a'.
Amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 9, leave out and IV' and insert IV and V.'.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add (except Article J.2 of Title V)'.
Amendment (b) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add (except Article J.4 of Title V)'.
Amendment (c) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J.1 in Title V thereof'.
Amendment (d) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J.3 in Title V thereof'.
mendment (e) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J. in Title V thereof'.
Amendment (f) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J. in Title V thereof'.
Amendment (g) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J. in Title V thereof'.
Amendment (h) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J. in Title V thereof'.
Amendment (i) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J. in Title V thereof'.
Amendment (j) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J. in Title V thereof'.
Amendment (k) to amendment No. 30, in line 1, at end add but not Article J. in Title V thereof'.
Amendment No. 224, in page 1, line 9, leave out and IV' and insert IV and V'.
New clause 5-- Foreign, security and defence policy
The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report of any case in which decisions taken, or proposed to be taken, by the Union in the course of implementing a common foreign, security and defence policy (pursuant to Article B in Title I of the Maastricht Treaty) are in his opinion inimical to the best interests of the United Kingdom.'.
Column 161
I have two short statements to make.First, I promised the Committee some time ago that I would announce in good time any changes that I made to my provisional--and I emphasise the word "provisional"--selection of amendments. Right hon. and hon. Members will see that I have selected for debate new clause 75 on transferred powers (commencement). As a corollary, I do not propose to select amendment No. 27 for debate or for separate Division.
Secondly, may I draw the Committee's attention to the omission of some eight columns from the Official Report of our previous sitting, at column 1103? I understand that the omission was due to an oversight at the printing stage. The missing columns have been printed as a corrigendum in the Hansard report of proceedings on Monday 29 March, following column 138. For the convenience of hon. Members who may be collating the reports of the Committee's proceedings, the corrigendum will also be reprinted as a separate supplement, which will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow morning.
Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am obliged to you for making available your provisional selection of amendments. This is the first occasion on which we have had to find out whether our amendments have been selected, so may I draw your attention to amendment No. 458, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), by some other hon. Friends and by myself? The amendment relates to sub-paragraph 2--
Mr. Leighton : I do not know the page number, Mr. Morris. I apologise for that.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Page 3205.
Mr. Leighton : I am advised that the page number is 3205. The amendment relates to clause 1(2), which authorises further legislative powers for the European Parliament. Within the intergovernmental titles of the treaty the European Parliament is mentioned nearly a dozen times--for example, article J.7 requires the presidency to consult the Parliament on matters of foreign policy. In view of those enhanced powers in the intergovernmental part of the treaty, would it not be appropriate for the House to decide whether the Government should keep it fully informed, through six-monthly reports, of the activities of the European Parliament? That is what the amendment asks for, so may I request that you reconsider your selection, Mr. Morris?
Mr. Chairman : I shall consider the matter, without commitment. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware that we have already debated that issue.
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I welcome your decision to allow a debate and vote on new clause 75 ; that will be widely welcomed. But I express some concern about the other part of your statement, in which you told the Committee that you did not now intend to allow amendment No. 27 to be formally moved, debated or even voted upon- -I believe that that is what you implied. Our case for a debate flows from the Attorney-General's statement at the time of the original debate on
Column 162
the group of amendments that included amendment No. 27. That statement purported to change totally the legal standing of the amendment and its possible impact on the legislation. The Attorney-General's statement was not universally approved, and ran contrary to the long-held view of the legal officers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, let alone the long-held views of many legal and constitutional experts outside the House.I put it to you, Mr. Morris, that that statement changed the whole nature of the circumstances that apply. That being so, the House is entitled to a further discussion about amendment No. 27. When I spoke in the original debate, I said that I intended to move that amendment and to ask for a vote upon it, and I believe that, notwithstanding our welcome for your decision on new clause 75, the Committee is entitled to that opportunity.
The Chairman : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, but I must tell him, and all other hon. Members of the Committee, that I have come to my conclusion after a great deal of thought. I repeat what I have said all the way through--that hon. Members are most welcome to come to see me and discuss such matters. However, I should say that in the circumstances I attach great importance to our having a focused debate rather than a repetition of earlier and broader debates.
Dr. Cunningham : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. No one is opposed to the idea of a focused debate. The reality is that new clause 75 and amendment No. 27 are completely within the same focus and address the same point. Even if you say that we should not be allowed to reopen the discussion on amendment No. 27, surely that is different from preventing the Committee from having a vote on it. That is an entirely different point. As amendment No. 27 is clearly in order--there is no question of its not being in order--and as it has been debated, I find it strange that you should rule that the Committee should be denied the opportunity to vote on it.
The Chairman : As I have told the Committee several times, I am always happy to assist right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is not our practice to argue the merits or otherwise of my selection across the Committee Floor. I hope that we can leave it at that.
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. When you decided to select new clause 75, did you consider new clause 67 ? Did you consider whether, as it deals with the area of discussion relevant to new clause 75, it might be possible to link it with that new clause and to allow a vote on it ?
The Chairman : I obviously take into consideration all new clauses that are in order. I come to a conclusion having considered them.
Mr. Spearing : On a point of order, Mr. Morris, concerning the group of amendments on which we are about to embark and especially amendment No. 30, to which is attached amendments (a) to (k). May we have a separate Division on amendment (h) ? I hope that a Division can be called at the relevant point of the Bill. You will be aware--
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman has been with us for almost every sitting of the Committee. He must know
Column 163
that the Chair must listen to the debate and then decide whether a Division is appropriate. It is not a matter for a point of order before we get to the debate.Mr. Spearing : Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I apologise for breaking the rule. In Standing Committees, the convention has been as I described it. I apologise for breaking the convention if there are different rules for a Committee of the whole House.
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman has registered his point. There is no point in arguing it now.
Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. As one of the authors of new clause 75, I clearly welcome your decision to select it. However, I am slightly surprised by your ruling on amendment No. 27. New clause 75 was specifically worded to be complementary to amendment No. 27. I wonder whether you would reconsider.
The Chairman : I have given a substantive answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who raised that matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I heard you say that there will be no debate on amendment No. 27 and that we shall not be able to vote on it. I can just about see the argument for not having a debate, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we--Back- Bench Members and the lot of us--cannot have a Division on amendment No. 27 in view of the fact that a Division takes only a quarter of an hour. The Government allow us to talk a donkey's hind leg off, but they are frightened of a vote that they may lose.
You, Mr. Morris, have selected new clause 75, but you have told us that we cannot vote on amendment No. 27. I ask myself which part of the Committee will be laughing about that. It is Tory Ministers. [ Hon. Members :-- "Not always."] It is on this issue. They are enamoured by the idea that there is to be no vote. Why can we not go through the Lobbies for a quarter of an hour on one of the most important issues on which the Government might well be defeated? We can have votes on everything else, but not on this. I smell a rat.
The Chairman : The hon. Gentleman can smell what he likes. Time is not a consideration. I suggest that he reads new clause 75 with a little more care.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I think that you will know that, despite probably being a problem boy on this Bill, I have paid the highest tribute, both inside and outside the Chamber, to the way in which you have conducted the proceedings. We should all like to pay tribute to you for the way in which you have done it.
My sole point of order is that amendment No. 27 is the only amendment to allow the Committee to determine the simple issue whether the British taxpayer should be obliged to pay a twelfth share of the costs of the social chapter for the 11. My constituents have views on that matter, and I think that the majority of Members of Parliament would probably take the view that the amendment should be passed so that we can determine whether it is fair to ask the British people to pay for something being undertaken by the other 11. What possible reason can there be for depriving us of the opportunity to express an opinion on whether our people
Column 164
should be obliged to pay those costs? I have been in the House of Commons for a long time and I genuinely cannot understand the argument against giving us that opportunity. Otherwise, how can we express our view as to whether it is right and proper for British taxpayers to pay someone else's costs?The Chairman : I have given a substantive answer and made an offer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads new clause 75 with a little more care.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You rightly say that we should read the new clause with a great deal of care and I am sure that that will be done. Having read it again with even more care, and knowing that other hon. Members have read it with even more legal knowledge than care, one may well take the view that amendment No. 27 and new clause 75 are different and will have a very different impact on the progress of the Bill, which is obviously of great importance to many hon. Members. If that is the case, may I beseech you that, if a significant weight of Back-Bench opinion wants to vote on amendment No. 27, that can be done?
The Chairman : I listen to submissions.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : The main security threat to western Europe is no longer the Soviet Union, or even any of its successors, but the dangers inherent in the economic, political and ethnic instabilities that have affected the continent of Europe as a result of the break-up of the Warsaw pact and the consequential growth of nationalism.
I was fortunate enough to be in Berlin on the day that the wall came down and I saw east Germans--mainly young east Germans--flooding through into west Berlin to begin the process of German unification. That process has been constitutionally completed, but economically the strains and tensions of reconciling two quite opposed systems have provoked the nationalism, racism and phobia redolent of a previous and more threatening era. That is why I believe that Germany and German unification must be the starting point for our debate on a common European foreign and security policy. Only by incorporating a united Germany within a developing, common and coherent European policy can we hope to avoid the instability, divisions and nationalism that have twice scarred western Europe this century. In trying to understand what is being attempted, it is worth while thinking back to the ideas underlying the treaty of Rome. Moves towards European integration after the second world war sprang from two main factors : first, the realisation that strength lies in unity ; secondly, the overriding need to avoid further military conflict in western Europe.
The European Community, however, is much more than an alliance of sovereign nations which happen to have common interests because of their common geographical location. The treaty of Rome emphasises mutual interdependence. One of the founding fathers of the Community, Jean Monnet, put it this way :
"Co-operation between nations, however important, does not solve anything. What we must seek is a pooling of interests of the peoples of Europe."
Column 165
Those words remind me of the words of Benjamin Franklin, who put the same idea in a simpler way when he warned the newly established American states that they must either hang together"or they would surely hang separately."
Interdependence has made it possible for the people of Europe, who have fought each other for centuries, to live together in peace and to continue the process of building political unity. Once political and economic destinies are linked, war becomes unthinkable. The end of the cold war gives a further opportunity to link the destinies of western Europe to those of eastern and central Europe.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : My hon. Friend has been talking about peace--and I am sure that he will agree that no one is keener than me to have a lasting peace in Europe. We should never again have the horrors of the two world wars that have cursed this century. Why does my hon. Friend believe that we cannot achieve peace on the terms that I have just outlined by retaining national independence and the closest co-operation? Is it not ironic that my hon. Friend should refer to a lasting peace at a time when there is a dispute between France and ourselves?
We should also consider what is happening in the rest of Europe, with the continued bloodshed and horror in the former Yugoslavian state. The sort of remedy that we want is not the false sort of unity of a federal Europe about which Jean Monnet was concerned, but the closest co-operation between states that remain independent. 4 pm
Mr. Hoon : My hon. Friend has been a Member of the House much longer than I have, and I know that in the course of his experience he will have seen the various steps towards that greater unity and understanding among the peoples of Europe. That is a delicate and difficult process that involves proceeding in a pragmatic way, step by step. The results will not be achieved overnight, but eventually the peoples of Europe will, together, build that confidence--which is what I suspect both sides of the Committee are seeking to achieve.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Would not my hon. Friend consider that the basic difference between the creation of the United States of America and a united states of Europe is simple? Initially, there was a strong belief in a unilingual unit and in the need to build the United States, whereas we face a different prospect. We face the imposition from above of a machinery that has not been agreed by the people involved.
It is plain, even from the small difficulties that we currently have with France, that, if there is no general agreement among the peoples on their wish to be governed by machinery that they do not believe represents them, those people will take direct action outside parliamentary institutions, and the results will be unpleasant, and certainly unhelpful.
Mr. Hoon : I concede, frankly and openly, that historical parallels are always dangerous. I am not suggesting that there is an exact parallel between the
Column 166
United States of America and the present situation in the European Community. I hope that nothing that I am saying is likely to cause great alarm to my hon. Friend.At present, independent nations are working together, particularly in the context of a common foreign policy association which is building on successes, to try to achieve still greater co-operation. I am not suggesting the imposition of anything from the top down--for the exercise to work, the independent countries must agree to share various approaches. I do not think that that is such a remarkable phenomenon.
Mr. Leighton : My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way--his speech is arousing great interest in the House. He mentioned that he was in Berlin on the day that the wall came down. Does he not agree that the Maastricht treaty was conceived before the wall came down, so it is in a time warp and is old-fashioned? The most important event to have happened in Europe is that the wall has come down and the totalitarian regimes have gone--Maastricht does nothing to enhance that.
The Maastricht treaty erects new economic barriers where there was once a physical barrier. If it is difficult for countries such as Britain to achieve the convergence criteria and for the pound to stay in the exchange rate mechanism, what chance do the zloty or the rouble have of staying in the ERM? Surely we want a wider arrangement to take in the whole of Europe, not the old-fashioned Maastricht treaty, which was conceived in the circumstances that prevailed before the wall came down.
Mr. Hoon : Some of the early ideas which led to the Maastricht treaty might have been thought of before the removal of the Berlin wall, but undoubtedly the treaty was negotiated in detail and agreed well after that period. I am not going to be tempted to comment on the economic implications of my hon. Friend's question ; I should probably be ruled out of order if I did.
In the context of the debate about a common foreign policy, I do not understand my hon. Friend's objections. What we are trying to do is build together a process of greater understanding within the European Community and, in the context of my hon. Friend's question, beyond into central and eastern Europe. I cannot see why anyone should object to that process.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : If the hon. Gentleman is going to avoid economics, could he at least urge his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) not only to read the treaty more closely but to study the history? From the beginning, there was no question but that the United States was going to be unilingual, as is obvious from the various debates that took place atates would be reduced, if not eliminated, is the same as the basis on which the Community developed.
| Next Section
| Home Page |