| Previous Section | Home Page |
The Prime Minister : I can tell my hon. Friend that we argued strongly for a policy that would lead to job creation across Europe. We will contribute to the White Paper which is now being produced and which will be discussed at the Brussels summit. I have no doubt that the contributions to it will be many and varied. We will certainly set out a series of supply side considerations of the sort to which my hon. Friend referred.
Column 325
Points of Order
4.55 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, during the debate on party funding, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) quoted from a letter alleging links between the President of the Board of Trade and an alleged fund-raising operation involving the Saudi Arabian Government. The author of that letter was not identified, and no substantiated evidence was produced to show that anything in that letter was true. The letter was quoted after the Saudi Arabian ambassador had specifically denied the allegations that appeared in The Guardian, and after the chairman of the Conservative party had also denied them.
I warned the hon. Member for Hammersmith that I intended to raise this matter with you, Madam Speaker. Although it is understandable that he should wish to divert attention from the appalling performance of the Opposition spokesman, was he not stooping low by raising an unsubstantiated allegation, and doing so when the President of the Board of Trade was patently not in a position to deny it?
Madam Speaker : Whatever happened yesterday or on previous days is a matter for the occupant of the Chair at that time. The incidents raised by the hon. Gentleman are not points of order. Points of order are not a court of appeal on what happened previously. If hon. Members believe that points of order should be raised, they should be raised at the time and dealt with. This is not a court of appeal at which we look back on something that took place previously.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to apologise to you and to the House for my temporary lapse a few moments ago, but it is aggravating to witness hilarity when one is discussing the sufferings in Bosnia.
Madam Speaker : Sometimes I have to exercise judicial deafness.
BILL PRESENTED
Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Scotland)
Mr. Gordon McMaster, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Tom Clarke, Sir David Steel, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Bill Walker, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr Jimmy Wray, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Adam Ingram, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Scotland, discrimination against disabled persons on the ground of their disability ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July 1993, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 6) Order 1993 (S.I., No. 1523) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Column 326
Young Offenders (Detention)
4.58 pm
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the detention in secure units of young offenders below the age of 14 years ; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would give juvenile magistrates the power to commit persistent young offenders below the age of 14 direct to a secure unit, without having to refer that decision back to social services. The Bill is needed urgently. All too often, local authorities thwart public opinion and the police by refusing to take advantage of the law, whereby only they can apply to have young thugs sent to a secure unit, either while on remand or for sentence. Those local authorities, with their soft liberal attitude, prefer to send the offender back into the community, where, within hours, he reoffends. There is nothing that the law can do to stop them, but society has had enough. It is time to act against persistent offenders who do not respond to normal cautions. Juvenile crime today has reached spine- chilling levels. The crimes are nastier and on a greater scale than ever before. It is a nationwide crisis.
The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales estimate that the true rate of juvenile crime has leapt by 54 per cent. in the last decade. Not a week goes by without a report of grotesque misbehaviour by a young teenager, who then gets away with it.
Those thugs, who are aged between 10 and 14, must be kept off the streets. Magistrates are in despair over having to hand the offenders back to the social services ; legally they cannot do otherwise. It is no use the Government planning more secure units or secure training establishments if it is not possible to send young offenders to them. My Bill seeks to redress that.
The inability to put a persistent offender into secure accommodation was highlighted in November by the tragedy in Stockton, when a stolen car, occupied by a number of runaways from children homes, collided with another car, killing one woman and injuring three others. The driver was typical of the hard core of persistent offenders for whom magistrates were completely unable to insist on the provision of secure accommodation. Had that offender been put into a secure unit at the time, that woman would not have died. My constituency of quiet, leafy and prosperous Sutton is not an area where one would expect to find a hard core of tough, young criminals. However, we have a gang of a dozen youngsters, who, with another dozen acolytes, have run up scores of offences of burglary--of both shops and residential premises--drug dealing, stealing cars, joyriding, ram-raiding and so on. The gang are all aged 14 or under. As they operate in pleasant suburbia, they are more money-oriented than their violent brothers in the inner cities, and can earn up to £2,000 a night with the help of adult Fagins.
Money and robbery becomes a drug to them. One young thug admitted to being addicted to stealing. The boys are arrogant and defiant, and know that they are above the law. They are skilled, fast and sophisticated in their work, and the scale of their crimes is disproportionate to their numbers.
Column 327
The group to which I have referred call themselves the Sutton burglary posse. They are so confident that they stole a printing press and ran off calling cards, which they leave at the addresses that they rob. The cards say : "Sutton Burglary Posse was here-- phone 999." In 18 months, those youngsters, all aged between 12 and 14, have stolen £1.5 million-worth of goods and caused hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage to property, for which long-suffering retailers and householders have to bear the entire cost in increased insurance premiums and repairs.The Sutton burglary posse even has the nerve to telephone rakish minicabs, which, for a percentage of the profits, will collect the youngsters and their loot and cart them off home. If caught, the boys stand hands in pockets, boasting of their successes and telling the police. "There is nothing you can do to me." At present, they are right.
Moreover, they know their rights--telephoning solicitors before their parents, or, in other cases, calling social services in the middle of the night to get them out of the police cells. Once free, they escape back into crime.
They have no fear of the consequences, for there will be none. Instead, they laugh when arrested and joke with friends when they appear in court. When released, having been given yet another supervision order to cover perhaps scores of charges, they celebrate in an almost carnival atmosphere.
One ringleader in Sutton has been arrested more than 40 times, with 200 charges against him. He has admitted twice as many offences. On one occasion, he appeared in court to face 21 charges ranging from actual bodily harm to burglary, receiving, stealing cars, carrying an offensive weapon and so on. All that the frustrated magistrates could give him, accepting that social workers would not put him into a secure unit, was a one-year supervision order. Afterwards, he was congratulated by fellow posse members and his social worker on getting off so lightly.
His mother was furious. She had pleaded, "Lock him up for his own good." Not surprisingly, the local newspaper, the Sutton and Cheam Herald, ran the headline,
"Posse boy walks free--age saves chronic burglar from harsher sentence."
Since then, he has committed another six offences. So much for social services' claim that he is a reformed lad. His solicitor pleaded for him by saying :
"He has not offended for three weeks now."
His friends are no different. One has been arrested 31 times, with scores of charges. Do not be taken in by his small size and completely angelic looks. He can barely reach a car's pedals, but he has no compunction about stealing high-performance cars and purposely baiting the police into a car chase.
Another one was barely 13 when he was first arrested. Today, aged 14, among his many offences is a charge of blinding another boy with a pen. He carries a double-edged Stanley knife, which I am told is now highly fashionable among his group. It is good for heavy scarring.
Another boy, by his 15th birthday, had been arrested 60 times, and on each occasion only conditional discharges and supervision orders could be passed. There was
Column 328
absolutely nothing that the magistrates could do, and the local authority was not prepared to apply to commit him to a secure unit. Now he is at last in Feltham, but the damage to society has already been done.There are such posses all over the country. Many are nastier, with hideous reports of bloody violence. Police are angered, and society is furious at the contemptuous way in which they swagger back to the streets.
We would not be facing such a serious crisis if social workers and their political masters were more responsive to society's needs. The fact is that they are ideologically against putting a persistent offender into secure accommodation. Their argument is that such units are universities for crime and that, in any case, it is cruel. These juveniles are already in highly select schools of crime by virtue of the company that they keep.
What seems to be forgotten by social workers is that society pays an intolerable price for these crimes that far outweighs the cost of re- educating juveniles. I have visited three such units--Orchard Lodge at Crystal Palace, Glen House near Southampton, and Middlesex Lodge at Hillingdon. They are small, with a high ratio of adults to youngsters ; the maximum number that a unit takes is eight. Their purpose is as much re- education as removing them from society. They teach youngsters how to lead structured, normal lives, and give regular schooling with plenty of one-to- one teaching. Years of truanting have left such youngsters largely illiterate. Evidence shows that, by keeping a young person for several months, or ideally for a year, much good work can be achieved.
The decision about whether social services should refer a child to a secure unit is a geographical lottery. Sutton local authority is resistant, but Newcastle upon Tyne made more than 160 referrals in 1986, whereas in nearby Gateshead, only one child was locked up for similar behaviour. In Sunderland, crime was halved when an 11-year-old who had committed more than 200 offences was put in a secure unit. Research in Northumbria has shown that one in three juveniles reoffend while on bail.
Time is against us. It is quite unacceptable for youngsters to continue to punish the community. Magistrates must have the power to send them to secure units. The Bill will redress the balance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lady Olga Maitland, Sir John Wheeler, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. John Gorst, Mr. Nigel Forman, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Michael Stephen, Mr. David Lidington, Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, Dr. Robert Spink and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.
Young Offenders (Detention)
Lady Olga Maitland accordingly presented a Bill to permit the detention in secure units of young offenders below the age of 14 years ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
Column 329
Orders of the Day
Agriculture Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Ordered.
That the Agriculture Bill [Lords] , as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part I, amendmemendments relating to Clauses 23 to 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 33, Schedule 4, Clauses 34 to 45, new Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Clauses 46 to 49, remaining new Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 50 to 57, new Schedules, amendments relating to Clause 58, Schedule 5, Clause 59.-- [Mrs. Gillian Shephard.]
New clause 18
Publicity for determinations (No. 2)
.-(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after granting an application under section 2 or 5 above, the authority granting the application shall make public in such manner as it thinks fit-- (
(a) the fact that it has granted the application, and
(b) the principles of the approved scheme or, as the case may be, of the approved variation.
(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after deciding under section 6 above to withdraw an approved scheme's approval, the authority making the decision shall make its decision public in such manner as it thinks fit.'.- - [Mr. Jack.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
5.10 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Secondtime.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government new clause 17-- Publicity for determinations (No. 1).
Mr. Jack : With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make a short statement for the clarity of the House. I wish to inform the House that my wife and I held between us some 4,000 shares in Northern Foods plc which were acquired as a result of the company I worked for before coming into Parliament being taken over by Northern Foods. I say this as a matter of courtesy to the House.
I turn now to new clause 18 with which there are clearly parallel measures in clause 17. The Bill would require a milk marketing board to bring the principles of its reorganisation scheme to the attention of registered producers. Ministers would have to consult representatives of producers, processors, retailers and consumers of milk.
The principles of the scheme will be in the public domain. Under the provisions of clause 4, the reorganisation scheme may be modified between submission and approval if Ministers cannot approve the scheme in its original form. A scheme as approved may therefore be different from that originally submitted for approval.
If Ministers decide to approve a scheme, it is important that those affected by it should know what has been approved. The new clause would require Ministers to make public the principles of an approved scheme. The same format would apply to any proposed changes to the
Column 330
potato marketing board. The new clause would also require Ministers to publicise any approved variations to the scheme. That is in the spirit of ensuring that all those who need to know what is going on can find out the facts.Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) : I preface my remarks by congratulating the Minister on his appointment. I hope that he finds his term of office rewarding and worth while.
The new clause is better than nothing. It focuses attention on one of the Bill's great weaknesses. We have received considerable support from industry, and certainly from the Dairy Trade Federation which agrees that it is wrong that the new scheme is not subject to parliamentary approval.
The Bill should have provided for the approved reorganisation scheme setting up the successor body and associated matters to come before both Houses of Parliament for approval. There is no question but that we are talking of something of tremendous importance to the agriculture industry, food industry and consumers in Britain. My second point focuses on what we consider to be the other flaw in the legislation. The new clause makes it clear that the applicants will be the boards. It refers to "after granting an application", but an application may be made only by the England and Wales milk marketing board, the Northern Ireland milk marketing board or the Scottish milk marketing board. That substantially predetermines the outcome of the revised arrangements.
If the only scheme that can be approved is one that is submitted by a board, the boards will put forward single co-operative arrangements or something along those lines. The new clause rules out completely the option of integrated regional milk co-operators which certainly should have been given careful attention. That option would have provided for a number of integrated co-operatives owned by the producers covering England and Wales.
The requirement that the only scheme that can be approved is one submitted by the board pre-empts us. We will have a huge, voluntary single co- operative, probably dominating the marketplace. We are grateful to the Minister for his clarification of the new clause. Of course it is desirable that such matters should be brought to the attention of the public. We simply regret that the revised schemes are not subject to parliamentary approval.
Mr. Jack : I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and I thank him for his most courteous and kind words of welcome to the Dispatch Box. However, there was uniformity of agreement in Standing Committee that everyone wanted these matters to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the additional process that he suggested would slow up the measure.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks were very much addressed to the successor to the milk marketing board, but that will not be the only thing on offer. As we already know, other interested parties are proposing their own schemes which involve the taking of milk for the purposes of manufacture or liquid milk delivery. Those in the dairy industry will have to consider a multiplicity of alternatives. In Standing Committee, on Second Reading and now, Ministers who will have to make the decision on what is an appropriate scheme, as detailed in clause 3, will obviously
Column 331
take into account the concerns put to them in the House, but bearing in mind the large number of people who will look carefully at the successor schemes and the points that they put forward. There will be a widespread public debate as people consult and discuss the issue and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the principal details will be laid in the Library of the House.Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 13
Functions under section
19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act-- 1958
. The functions of a committee appointed under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (consumers' committees and committees of investigation) shall not include the consideration of anything done by a milk marketing board
(a) by way of preparing for the enactment of this Part of this Act, or
(b) in connection with an application under this Part of this Act or the carrying out of an approved scheme.'.-- [Mr. Jack.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Jack : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient also to discuss Government new clause 14-- Functions under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
Mr. Jack : In taking these two clauses together, it is important to stress that the establishment of committees of investigation and consumer committees is provided for by the Agriculture Marketing Act 1958.
The committees' purpose is to consider complaints about the operation of the milk marketing scheme and the parallel operation for potatoes and to monitor their effect on consumers respectively. The approval and monitoring of the implementation of the reorganisation schemes are dealt with not by that mechanism but by the Agriculture Bill and, as the Bill says, are matters specifically for Ministers. It is unnecessary for the committees to oversee reorganisation. The new clause makes it clear that the committees have no particular or specific role in boards' activities relating to schemes of reorganisation before or after enactment.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box and look forward to sparring with him many times in the future.
As the Minister will know, I agreed with the former Minister of State that I would not speak about the new clause on Report, as he had agreed to withdraw it to allow consultation to take place outside the House. The Minister may also know that his hon. Friend has subsequently released me from that commitment.
Some concern is being expressed about the new clause. It appears to preclude the right of a consumer organisation outside the Government, the House and the milk marketing boards to complain about the operation of the scheme during the transitional period preceding vesting day when that transition might be considered to be the cause of any difficulties caused to milk consumers by the scheme. In effect, the transition could be used as an excuse for failure to report to Ministers and to put that report in
Column 332
writing. Moreover, by removing the power of the committee of investigation to investigate any act or admission by the board through the use of the same "transition" arguments--or excuses--the new clause may well prevent a perfectly legitimate investigation from taking place.Ministers may have had in mind the possibility of prolonged and delayed investigation when the new clause was tabled, but it does not necessarily follow that an investigation will be prolonged or delayed. At a time when the milk marketing board is in turmoil--it is going through a period of great uncertainty--the new clause may well act against the public interest. Indeed, precisely that has happened on more than one occasion in recent months.
We believe that the powers in the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 should be retained, in the widest possible sense--if only for brief investigations-- and that other powers that might be available to Milk Marque or to consumer organisations are insufficient.
Mr. Jack : I thank the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell- Savours) for his words of welcome. I have listened carefully to what he has said.
At times of change, there is a danger that people will use certain language to try to create a crisis where none exists. The hon. Gentleman said that the board was in a state of turmoil ; my early observation suggests that it is working extremely hard to establish its future, while continuing to serve both consumers and providers of milk. Certainly, no flood of letters has arrived on my desk suggesting that it is in turmoil or that it is paying insufficient attention to detail.
The purpose of the committees, under the 1958 Act, is to consider complaints about the operation of the milk marketing scheme and to monitor its effect on consumers. By "complaints", I mean specific complaints about the day-to-day operation of the board. The committees are intended to examine the details of complaints ; they were never designed to examine matters of policy. That is what the elected members of the board are there to do. They are the farmer representatives : they sit on the board to consider the complaints and concerns of the industry. It is important not to confuse the two sets of activities.
The committees were not established to judge what might be the nature of a successor organisation. The Bill sets out clearly the terms on which that job would be done. The hon. Member for Workington put his points precisely. Let me say to him with equal precision that this is not the committees' task, that I do not think that the board is in a state of turmoil and that the terms on which the interests of consumers, producers and others will be taken into account are clearly defined in clause 3.
Question put and agreed to.
Claused read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 1
Market distortions arising out of reorganisation
.--(1) Where it appears to Ministers that distortions have arisen in the supply and marketing of milk, Ministers may by regulation introduce measures to assist in the orderly supply and marketing of such product.
(2) Measures may only be introduced under subsection (1) above where Ministers are satisfied that there has been an abuse of dominant market position arising out of--
Column 333
(a) favourable treatment as to price and supply of milk to customers with whom a qualifying successor body is connected by reason of equity ; or(b) favourable treatment as to price and supply of milk to customers with whom a qualifying successor body is connected by reason of equity held by producers where such producers hold a majority share of the issued capital.
(3) Where Ministers are satisfied that such an abuse of dominant market position exists, they may specify a course of action to be taken by the qualifying successor body.'.-- [Dr. Strang.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr. Strang : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following : new clause 7-- Future regulation (No. 1)-- .--(1) In the case of a scheme of re-organisation submitted by the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales the approval of the appropriate authority shall be deemed withdrawn if by vesting day any successor body to the said board has failed to appoint to its Board of Directors or equivalent a nominee of the appropriate authority for a period of three years from vesting day.
(2) It shall be the duty of such nominee to report quarterly to the appropriate authority on all matters relating to the purchase and sale of milk by the successor body including matters which in the opinion of the nominee could affect competition in the marketing of milk in England and Wales.
(3) Each report of the nominee shall be issued by the appropriate authority to such persons as in its opinion are representative of the interests of producers of milk and processors of milk within 14 days of its receipt.
(4) For the purpose of this section reference to a "successor body" shall mean any body proposed by a board in a scheme of
re-organisation to be engaged in milk trading and in respect of which a statement of the nature required by section (2) (c) has been submitted.'.
New clause 8-- Future regulation (No. 2)--
.--(1) In the case of a scheme of re-organisation submitted by the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales it shall be a requirement of any approval of such a scheme that on vesting day or, if the target figure specified in subsection (2) below is attained before that date then on the day it is attained, the appropriate authority shall be advised by any successor body to the said board of the names of the producers contracting to supply milk to it and by the said board of the volume of milk which those producers had sold to it in the year 1st April 1992 to 31st March 1993 ("the period") and the total volume of milk sold to it during the period.
(2) Where the milk sold to the said board during the period by the producers contracting to supply a successor body represents 50 per cent. or more of the total volume of milk sold to the said board during the period ("the target figure"), the appropriate authority shall refer the trading practices and operations whether actual or intended of any such successor body to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation.
(3) For the purposes of this section reference to a "successor body" shall mean any body proposed by a board in a scheme of re-organisation to be engaged in milk trading and in respect of which a statement of the nature required by section (2) (c) has been submitted.'.
| Next Section
| Home Page |