House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Apr 1995

Column 661

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen): For the first time in my years in the House I rise on a point of order to seek your help and guidance, Madam Speaker. This is a matter of courtesy between colleagues, about which you have expressed concern. During the past four weeks, three senior Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have visited my constituency. Not one had the courtesy to send me a note of the visit. They were the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). Of course, I sent them a note to say that I would raise this point of order referring to them. During those visits, two of them visited projects that are up and running only due to my lobbying in the House for Government finance. I seek your help and guidance on how we might prevent that sort of thing from happening in future, as it is a discourtesy.

Madam Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Lady, but I can give the House guidance, as I have done on numerous occasions. I expect hon. Members to inform each other when they are visiting other Members' constituencies in a public capacity. I have said so on numerous occasions. As the House knows, I have no authority to ensure that that is carried out.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, when two hon. Members were suspended, you said that they could use their offices provided that they took the direct route. Have you changed the policy, because some of my hon. Friends, who have been expelled for what some of us would consider trivial reasons, have been banished from the premises? What is worse, they have been taken ignominiously to their offices by the Serjeant at Arms and escorted through the gate. Will you clarify the matter for the House?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member obviously wants some explanation. Access to the House is a matter for the Speaker. There is an anomaly between the Standing Order-- [Interruption.] Just a moment. Let us have a little quiet as this is a serious matter. There is an anomaly between suspensions made under Standing Order No. 43 and suspensions made in other circumstances, as laid down in "Erskine May". When the House suspends a Member under the Standing Order, he or she is not allowed to enter the precincts. According to "Erskine May", when a matter has gone before the Privileges Committee and a Member is suspended from the House, that Member is not excluded from the precincts, unless the order for his suspension expressly provides for that. That is an intolerable situation, which is why I chose the compromise of allowing those Members to have access to their offices, but by the most direct route only. I have referred the matter to the Procedure Committee because I

Column 662

am not satisfied with how it stands. I want a clear ruling from that Committee so that it will be clear for all hon. Members in future.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): Further to the first point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the same judgment apply to Ministers? Last week, a Minister came to my constituency to visit a crumbling school that desperately needs some money--he did the Labour party good because he said that he would not give us the money. He visited Withinfield school in my constituency and did not inform me. When a local councillor, who was there to meet him, asked where the money would come from, he stayed away for two and a half hours because he did not want to face the flak.

Madam Speaker: Yes. My ruling affects everyone.

Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South) rose --

Madam Speaker: Is it a me-too-ism?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Madam Speaker. Further to that point of order, the Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment recently visited my constituency, both without the courtesy of informing me that they would do so. Will you pass judgment on that as well?

Madam Speaker: I do not exclude Ministers from this ruling. I see that the Leader of the House is on the Treasury Bench. I know how keen he is on this matter and I hope that he will assist me in letting Ministers know that their offices should inform hon. Members when Ministers are to visit an hon. Member's constituency.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance because, during Prime Minister's questions today, I and a number of my colleagues noticed that at least two or three persons who are no longer members of the press but are now advisers to the Leader of the Opposition were in the Press Gallery. Should they be there at all, given that they no longer work for organs of the press with official press passes?

Madam Speaker: From where I sit, I can see no one in the Press Gallery. I should like the evidence from the hon. Gentleman and I shall then make a decision about it.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you and the rest of the House would thoroughly agree with the Prime Minister when he said today that we should not use derogatory expressions that give great offence to those against whom they are aimed. Are you aware of the expression being used, as a result of which the person against whom it was used said that he felt like Cardigan at the charge of the Light Brigade, and he does not want to be referred to as a Conservative again?

Madam Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair. It is one of the usual bogus points of order that I get at this time on a Tuesday.

Column 663

Road Traffic Reduction

3.36 pm

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes.

Some two years ago, I introduced under the ten-minute rule an Energy Conservation Bill. At that time, energy conservation was not a subject of passionate debate in the House but, for a number of reasons, it became so. Following a vigorous campaign and through a tortuous process, and thanks to the fact that it was adopted by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon- Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), a Home Energy Conservation Bill based on it has completed its passage through the House and should be on the statute book before long.

The Road Traffic Reduction Bill that I am introducing today is, in many ways, similar. Its starting point is the imperative of moving towards environmental sustainability, but it has important social, economic and health implications. It gives local government a central role, modelled on that in the Energy Conservation Bill. A major difference is the fact that its subject is already a matter of passionate debate.

It is particularly timely that I should be introducing this Bill a few days after the publication of the Environment Select Committee's report on volatile organic compounds, just one of the pollutants produced from road traffic exhausts. That report follows the royal commission report on transport and the environment; the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment referring to the traffic-generating effect of road building; and the Transport Select Committee's report on road traffic emission.

The health effects of traffic emissions, particularly affecting children, have concentrated our minds on the issue. A cocktail of pollutants-- nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, particulates and volatile organic compounds--are, in all probability, linked to the doubling of asthma among children over the past 10 years and the estimate in a report by Lancaster university that 15 million people in the UK suffer health problems as a result of road traffic near their homes. But that is not all. Increasing road traffic swallows up land, reduces biodiversity and consumes natural resources at a huge rate, causing further environmental and other damage in their extraction and processing. It is a major negative factor in reducing the quality of people's lives and almost certainly in fragmenting communities and informal social networks, leading to alienation and an increasing crime rate.

Nearly 4,000 people die on the roads each year and the lives of thousands more are blighted through injury--children and the elderly are the most affected. Road accidents are the main cause of death in the 10 to 14-year- old age group. Small wonder that only 20 per cent. of schoolchildren walk to school today compared with 80 per cent. 20 years ago. That has exacerbated the problem of road traffic.

Column 664

The recent conference at Berlin confirmed that climate change as a result of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions is, in all probability, a grave reality. The increase in road transport is a major, growing factor influencing climate change. In the United Kingdom, 24 per cent. of CO emissions come from surface transport and of them 80 per cent. come from road transport. Between 1970 and 1990, CO emissions from road transport almost doubled. If the Government's prediction of a doubling in the number of vehicles on the road by 2025 is fulfilled, it will more than negate the reductions in CO emissions achieved through greater efficiency in other sectors.

The planned increase in private car use in so-called "developing" countries such as China, Indonesia and Malaysia constitutes a global problem of staggering proportions. It serves to emphasise the need for developed countries such as the United Kingdom, with direct experience of the negative effects of what was seen at one time as an unmixed blessing, to seek to influence by setting an example. How do we turn the tide?

Many people would place their faith in technological improvements, new fuels and so on. They are important developments, but they merely address the issue of health-damaging pollutants. I can do no better than offer a quotation from the report published last week by the Environment Select Committee, to illustrate the complexity of the issue. It stated:

"Road traffic is a major source of many significant pollutants . . . and any strategy to reduce emissions must take all of these into account. The `diesel versus petrol' debate illustrates the danger of looking solely at VOCs: the VOC emissions from diesel engines are far lower than those from petrol, but diesel engines emit higher levels of particulates which are now thought to present a greater risk to health than the typical levels of VOCs from a petrol engine. Looking at the problem from a different angle, VOC emissions could be cut dramatically if all non-catalyst cars were immediately scrapped and replaced with new vehicles. However, the manufacture of new cars uses energy and produces carbon dioxide, which may have a consequence for global warming."

It is worth noting the next sentence in the report:

"It is now widely recognised that the only sustainable long term solution to traffic pollution is a reduction in traffic growth." I would go further, because I believe that we should talk about a reduction in traffic. How will that be brought about?

The Government are committed to the use of economic instruments to achieve environmental targets, the annual 5 per cent. real terms increase in petrol duty figures prominent among them. I would not deny the validity of such instruments, which need to considered in the context of the vital debate on environmental taxation as against taxation on people and employment. To depend purely and simply on economic instruments would be ineffective, inequitable and damaging to rural areas such as my constituency, where there is currently little alternative to the motor car and where distribution costs are significant.

The Bill, which has been prepared by Friends of the Earth and the Green party, approaches the problem from the other direction. It requires the relevant Secretary of State to draw up a United Kingdom-wide road traffic reduction plan with targets of stabilisation by the year 2000; a 5 per cent. reduction in traffic by 2005; and a 10 per cent. reduction by 2010. Local authorities are required to draw up plans for reducing traffic through measures related to public transport and rail transport, appropriate planning policies, traffic calming, pedestrianisation and

Column 665

public education. The royal commission supports the principle of targets as does the Confederation of British Industry.

The report of the Environment Select Committee also stressed the role of local authorities, which is in keeping with Agenda 21's emphasis on local action through local Agenda 2ls, in which traffic reduction should be a crucial component. Local authorities have the expertise and detailed knowledge of their areas to devise measures appropriate to them. They alone could facilitate the widespread public consultation and consciousness building that are the essential preconditions for success. Their task would be enormously challenging and exciting, and they would co-operate with each other, sharing ideas and examples of best practice and drawing on the store of ideas that already exist both here and abroad.

I draw the attention of the House to the excellent document from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, "Wales Needs Transport, Not Traffic", and to the ideas of the Countryside Council for Wales for promoting green holidays, linking public transport with cycling and walking routes.

In continental Europe, there are numerous examples of cities whose achievements in actually reducing traffic levels have been positively received both by the general public and by the commercial sector. The Bill would provide a useful framework for a progressive traffic reduction policy. I invite hon. Members to support it and I look forward to its further progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Nick Ainger.

Road Traffic Reduction

Mr. Cynog Dafis accordingly presented a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

Column 666

Fiftieth Anniversary of the end of World War II 3.46 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, recalling the humble Addresses presented to His Majesty King George VI on the 17th May and 21st August 1945, beg leave to express to Your Majesty our joy in commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War and of the defeat of the forces of evil which it brought, our thanks for the fortitude of the men and women who served with the armed forces or who participated in the war effort in civilian life between 1939 and 1945, our recognition of the sacrifice made on behalf of future generations by those who died or who were disabled in their country's service, and our desire that the constructive work of peace for which our predecessors in 1945 prayed may continue and grow in the years to come.

It has long been a tradition of the House that we mark significant national events by presenting a humble Address to the sovereign. That was the case in May 1945 when Mr. Winston Churchill moved the motion for such an Address to be presented to His Majesty King George VI. The motion on that occasion expressed the gratitude of the nation for the end of the war in Europe, together with a wish to see a speedy conclusion to the war in the east. That wish was met; just three months later the House was able to present another humble Address to His Majesty after the successful conclusion of the war against Japan.

Throughout the war, the royal family symbolised the unity of the nation and of the Commonwealth, and the willingness to make whatever sacrifices were necessary to ensure victory and the preservation of a free way of life. When Britain stood alone, the courage and determination of the King and Queen offered strength to the British people and to countless millions of people beyond our shores. It is no surprise that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother continues to hold such a special place in the affections of the British people. Many remember, and countless millions who were not alive at the time know, the fortitude and resilience that she and the King displayed throughout the war. The then Princess Elizabeth--a teenager when the war began, now Her Majesty the Queen--played her full part in furthering the war effort, and Her Majesty has continued to set an example of duty and service to the nation and to the Commonwealth throughout the 50 years since then.

The commemoration of the end of the war is not a triumphalist occasion, but an occasion to pay proper tribute to the millions of brave men and women whose lives were cruelly, often tragically, disrupted by the demands of the war that had to be won.

Last year marked the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings. Everyone who took part in the commemorative events was profoundly moved by them. I, for one, will long remember the march-past of the veterans on the sands of Arromanches. There were thousands upon thousands of them--brave men and women in their 70s and 80s now, often with a chestful of medals and a mind full of memories, some with sticks, some pushed in

Column 667

wheelchairs, some limping, some walking, some marching, but all moving with pride before the Queen, and with their memories of their service to their nation in the last war.

As the House will know, a number of events are planned to commemorate the 50th anniversary of VE day next month and of VJ day in August. It is appropriate that the prelude to those events should be the parliamentary occasion of presenting a humble Address to the Queen.

Here in the Chamber we have a constant reminder of those days 50 years ago. The Churchill Arch, at the entrance from the Members' Lobby, was rebuilt from the original, damaged in the bombing raids of 1941. It poignantly recalls how even the mother of Parliaments made its sacrifice. As Churchill himself said, all of us present here today, who are uniquely privileged to pass through that Arch, should

"look back from time to time upon their forbears who

`--kept the bridge

In the brave days of old.'"--[ Official Report , 25 January 1945; Vol. 407, c. 1006.]

As our Parliament sat through the war it symbolised the dogged determination of democracy; a determination to overcome tyranny and dictatorship that was shared by countless millions throughout the world. For the price of sacrifice was paid here, too. Twenty-two Members of the House--together with 35 Members of the House of Lords and five members of staff of both Houses--were killed during the war. Eighteen present Members of the House also saw active service in the war and some, perhaps all, are present here in the Chamber on this occasion. Many others now sit along the Corridor in the other place. For them, the commemorations will hold special memories; and to them, we--who inherit the parliamentary freedom that they helped protect--owe special thanks.

When His Majesty King George VI replied to the humble Address 50 years ago, he said:

"It is My most fervent hope that we are entering upon an age of peaceful progress, wherein the natural talent and enterprise of My peoples can be devoted to the advancement of the happiness and prosperity of mankind."-- [ Official Report , 21 August 1945; Vol. 413, c. 417.]

Looking back over the past 50 years, we can see that many of the hopes for peace and reconciliation have been rewarded, but we have not banished conflict and terror throughout the globe. We have troops on peacekeeping and humanitarian duties in many countries. In recent days, there has been the tragic bomb attack in Oklahoma. This House has had direct experience of terrorist attacks, and several hon. Members have been the victims of terrorists.

The successful outcome of the second world war showed the importance of a determined and united effort to defeat military aggression. As we look ahead, we must exercise the same determination as was shown then, to counter the threat from terrorism, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world.

Madam Speaker, this is an occasion to look both back and forward. The perils of the last war dwarf the petty rancours of everyday politics today. I believe that our country has many reasons to look forward with hope to the future. I believe that, as we do so, it is right that we should look back thankfully to the sacrifices of the past. The whole House, the whole nation, the whole Commonwealth, will wish to remember and give thanks.

Column 668

3.53 pm

Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield): It is my privilege to associate myself entirely with what the Prime Minister has just said and with his sentiments about the royal family. It is a time for our nation to speak with one voice of remembrance, of joy at a victory magnificently won and sadness at the loss of life necessary to achieve it.

We remember a triumph that is all the more unalloyed because it was a victory, not as much of nation over nation, as of good over evil. The fight against Hitler and fascism was, and indeed remains, the moral case for taking up arms.

I was born almost a decade after the war ended and it was my father's generation who fought it. On behalf of my generation, I say to his that we pay tribute to their sacrifice and bravery with humility and gratitude. We recall the courage of the troops who fought and, in their millions, died or were wounded. Some of them bear their wounds to this day.

We commemorate, too, the millions of men and women who never left Britain during the war, but who played such a conclusive part in it--the firefighters, the ambulance men and women, the nurses and the police--and who worked, often through the blitz and in as great danger as those at the front. We remember the factory munitions workers, Bevin's boys down the mines, and the steel and ship workers who placed production at full stretch in the war effort.

We reflect, not just on the great battles fought and the medals of honour granted, but on the countless small acts of heroism, which are often unrecorded and the memory of which may be effaced, but whose spirit won the war. The country at that time worked with one heart and one mind to one end, and succeeded. The solidarity of the nation persisted after the war in rebuilding the towns and the cities, putting people back to work, and creating the modern structures of a national health service and a welfare state capable of offering hope to heroes.

So what, at this distance of half a century, are the lessons of the war that we can learn? We learn about pride in our country--there are few nations, if any, that can claim without exaggeration to have helped save the world from tyranny. We learn about the strength of freedom and democracy as motivators of the human soul because we remember, too, today, not just ourselves but the millions in other countries--particularly perhaps those Jewish people in countries conquered by Hitler--who continued to resist, no matter what the cost. We learn about the fragility of peace and the utter catastrophe of modern warfare, which the years before and during the war amply demonstrate. We learn humankind's deadly potential, amidst progress, for regression to primitive barbarity. We know now that if we choose to appease evil as it grows, we shall in the end be forced to fight it when it is fully grown. We think that with all the knowledge of our modern world, such evil can never happen again, but that generation thought that it would never happen at all.

We fought the war, but we did not do so alone. It is right that we remember our allies, and thank them. One of the most moving stories of statesmanship in the war came in January 1941, when defeat for Britain was certainly possible. We desperately needed the help of

Column 669

America. Harry Hopkins, the emissary of President Roosevelt, was here. At a dinner in his honour in Scotland, he said:

"I suppose you wish to know what I am going to say to President Roosevelt on my return."

And then, quoting from the Bible, he said:

"whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God". Hopkins then added:

"Even to the end".

That was the spirit of those times.

There was no doubt that this was a war to save civilisation. At the end of the war, as within Britain, so outside it, nation co-operated with nation to set up the institutions of international governance to act as a bulwark against disunity and aggression--the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and, later, the European Community. Amid all the cynicism about them, we should give thanks that there was the vision to build them and that, by and large, their role has been constructive and positive.

Let us hope that such a time of evil will not arise again, but let us never forget that it did. It confronted us with an intensity and menace unsurpassed in our history. Let us give thanks that we rose up against it, defeated it and so provided a future of hope for this generation and the generations yet unborn.

3.59 pm

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): I am privileged and delighted to be able to support the words in the motion moved by the Prime Minister and echoed by the leader of the Labour party.

Of course, it is absolutely right that we should express our pleasure to Her Majesty the Queen in celebrating and commemorating that victory of 50 years ago, a victory in which Her Majesty's father and family played such an extraordinary and very large part, in terms of leadership and symbolism.

Speaking in the debate to which the Prime Minister referred, the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, said of the royal family: "It is the symbol which gathers together and expresses those deep emotions and stirrings of the human heart which make men travel . . . and die together, and cheerfully abandon material possessions and enjoyments for the sake of abstract ideas."--[ Official Report , 15 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 2305.]

They may have seemed abstract ideas at the time, although I doubt that they felt them too much, but today they mean to us no less than our freedom, our civilisation, our capacity to have survived such a terrible evil and, of course, above all an expression of our national resolve and national unity. It is therefore right that we should

Column 670

celebrate, but it is right also that we should remember the pain of those without whose sacrifice that victory would not have been possible.

It is impossible for us to measure the debt that we owe to those who gave, all too often, their lives or, frequently, experienced a lifetime of maimed disability to ensure that we have had this half century being able to enjoy freedom, that a great evil was defeated and that the nations of Europe could come together to seek to banish war from our continent for ever. In the shadow of that, we saw a great unity in our nation and we saw the beginnings of the building of international institutions that also seek to tackle the evil of fascism and aggression in the world today. It is a moment to celebrate; it is also a moment to remember; and it is a moment to pray that the peace for which they paid such a high price may continue for us all.

4.1 pm

Mr. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme): Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that, had it not been for the courage of the British nation around the globe and the steadfastness of the House of Commons and Parliament, the nations of Europe would never have been liberated and that, in such circumstances, it is by no means impossible to imagine that the Nazi swastika would to this day have been flying over the capital cities of Europe?

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear how enormously welcome Her Majesty will be when she comes to the House on 5 May and how appropriate it is that the initial phase of this 50th anniversary commemoration should start here, in the House of Commons?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign,

Ordered ,

That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.--[ Mr. Newton. ]

Ordered ,

That such Members of this House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, do humbly know Her Majesty's Pleasure when she will be attended by the House with the said Address.--[ Mr. Newton. ]

Column 671

Orders of the Day

Medical (Professional Performance) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.4 pm

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is an important Bill. Its purpose is to ensure that high-quality, professional performance is maintained by all doctors in the national health service and in private practice. It will help to ensure that patients receive the standard of caring and up-to-date professional practice that they have a right to expect.

The Government stand for first-class public services and the Bill is part of that commitment. The citizens charter and the patients charter have brought a major change in attitude and performance in the NHS, so that it is now a service centred on patients.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. Will she confirm here and now that when she talks about all doctors, she includes in that definition hospital consultants? Most of the complaints brought to me by constituents have concerned the negligence of hospital consultants rather than general practitioners.

Next Section

Home Page