| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We must move on to the next debate.
Column 857
Roofing Contract (Plymouth Dockyard)1.30 pm
Mr. Sebastian Coe (Falmouth and Camborne): I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration will reply to my observations today. I recognise that the issues I wish to raise, particularly those which relate to English Heritage, fall at the door of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, but my hon. Friend's Department is a key funder of such projects. My hon. Friend will be relieved, as am I, that, unlike previous exchanges in the House, we are not discussing fishing today.
The title of this debate may appear a little dour and unexciting. It has not emptied the Dining Rooms, but, to my constituency, it is one of the more relevant debates of the year. This is only my second Adjournment debate, and it is my second on a key constituency matter. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns and to outline the case of Camborne Natural Slate, a company in my constituency, and the re-roofing contract for the Royal William dockyard in Plymouth. The essence of my case is that Camborne Natural Slate had been asked to tender for a contract, was told that it had been awarded it, and entered into production. At the last minute, the company was informed that English Heritage had intervened and had given the contract, I believe without good justification, to a Welsh company.
Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): Is my hon. Friend aware that Eternit, which is a major supplier of building materials in my constituency, is involved in that project, and is supplying some of the material? It is concerned about the point made by my hon. Friend, and, like me, wishes to offer whole-hearted support for the campaign that he is undertaking. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this week of all weeks, we have had rather too much interference from some people from Wales?
Mr. Coe: I am, as ever, deeply grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I am grateful for his support and for the support of Eternit in his constituency, which has written to me and to the owners of Camborne Natural Slate pledging its support. On my hon. Friend's second point, I have never really thought of myself as St. George in this place.
The supply of slate from Camborne to the Plymouth development corporation is not only vital for the company but has a significant consequence for the mining and process industries in Cornwall. Camborne Natural Slate has demonstrated that, despite the difficulties resulting from the near- disappearance of tin mining in Cornwall, it is possible to retain the Duchy's long history of mining by importing raw materials for value-added processing in the county. That is all the more important given the phoenix- like rise in the fortunes of South Crofty, Cornwall's last working mine, which is also in my constituency.
The case is straightforward. Camborne Natural Slate is a successful finished-slate producing company. In July 1994, its chairman, Dr. Chandra Durve, received a letter from the Philip Desmonde Partnership, writing on behalf of the Plymouth development corporation, asking whether Camborne Natural Slate would like to tender for the contract for the re-roofing of the Royal William dockyard.
The letter states that the natural slate roofing--Brazilian natural slate-- which is light grey in colour and which is used by Camborne Natural Slate
Column 858
"has been selected as suitable amongst a range of alternatives". Naturally, the company welcomed that approach, and put together its bid.I have seen a further letter sent to Camborne Natural Slate in September 1994, by Roger Monson on behalf of the development director of the Plymouth development corporation. It said that the corporation had decided
"in consultation with English Heritage . . . to erect five in-situ slate samples for inspection and further inspection".
The letter also specified the date by which the corporation should receive all the samples. All this suggests that, at that stage, English Heritage was satisfied with Camborne Natural Slate. That is when we arrive at the first contradiction. English Heritage subsequently claimed that it had decided against using Camborne Natural Slate in June 1994. I have a copy of the aforementioned letter, which was dated 26 September 1994. That is odd.
Camborne Natural Slate legally tendered for the contract. It took eight months to draw up the tender list and, although in-depth discussions took place between the Plymouth development corporation and English Heritage about size, colour, texture, quality and all other aspects of the slates on offer, no doubt was ever expressed about the Camborne slate. Indeed, I understand that one source of Welsh slate was rejected by English Heritage at the outset, because of its colour.
Following the submission, in March 1995 Camborne Natural Slate was invited to meet the Plymouth development corporation consultants. It was at that meeting that it was advised that it would be awarded the contract subject to terms. Given the nature of the correspondence and subsequent communications, and due to the nature, scale and timing of the required supply, the company took the not unnatural step of commencing production. It had, after all, been assured that it would be awarded the contract and it wanted to provide a first-rate service. Its decision was based on firm assurances, and it was unaware that it was taking any risks.
English Heritage has recently stated that it does not feel that Camborne Natural Slate's product is suitable for the re-roofing contract. That pronouncement goes against the advice and knowledge of all local experts. English Heritage claims that the slate is the wrong colour and has too smooth a texture. Throughout the bidding process, Camborne Natural Slate made it clear that it was capable of making slates of whatever texture was required, and, indeed, has done so on many other notable historic restorations.
Historically, all slate quarried in the south-west was pale in colour, with green and grey as the predominant shades. Unlike Welsh slate, it would not have been black or shades of black.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): Welsh slate is not black. One type is blue, and the other is purple. While I am on my feet, I feel that I should interfere on behalf of Welsh slate producers. The hon. Gentleman is making a case for importing slate from Brazil, and is arguing against the best product in the world, which is mined in Wales. Is he, as a Conservative Member of Parliament, saying, "Don't buy anything from Wales, even if it is mined locally--import instead"? That is preposterous.
Mr. Coe: I am happy to respond to that, and I shall deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman later in
Column 859
my observations. The hon. Gentleman represents an area that is not dissimilar in nature to my constituency. He will know that, for those areas to prosper and for their economic foundations to be vibrant, value-added is a key part of any inward investment.It is absurd to suggest that a slate comes out of the ground and is suddenly nailed to a roof. The hon. Gentleman knows that an awful lot of work goes into it first. Camborne Natural Slate is producing a product 70 per cent. of whose input is of a domestic nature, and 70 per cent. of the income raised remains in the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): May I assure my hon. Friend that he has the total and absolute backing of the whole of west Cornwall for his case, especially in the light of the disgraceful way in which the Welsh Development Agency is doing its utmost to poach jobs and firms from Cornwall. If we lose the order, the economy of the south-west and west Cornwall will be hit again; and goodness knows, it needs all the help it can get.
Mr. Coe: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend, who has raised the issue of the processing of regional selective assistance and the various grants. We have both been to see Ministers to discuss the matter, and, as the Member of Parliament for a constituency adjoining that of my hon. Friend, I recognise the profound importance of the outcome to the economy of the south-west.
Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport): Surely the issue is not whether Welsh or Cornish slate should be used. The fact is that English Heritage accepted that the six tenders were all appropriate for the job, and Camborne Natural Slate then put in the best tender--better than the Welsh tender. Surely the decision should now be based purely on price.
Mr. Coe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall deal with it in my final observations.
It is important to establish the fact that the darker unweathered slates appear at depth. As the Cornish miners of yesteryear had neither the technology nor the need to dig deep, all the slate used was light in colour, akin to the Camborne slates, which are light grey. Studies have found that those are ideally suited to match the traditional grey weathered slates still seen on historic buildings. For reasons of colour and historical authenticity, many local builders deliberately use Camborne slates to patch old roofs. I have seen a letter from Richard Edwards, senior lecturer at the world-renowned Camborne school of mines in my constituency, which says that the Camborne slates fit in perfectly with the slates of the south-west peninsula. In other words, they are the nearest we can get to the original slates used on the dockyard roof.
I can now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), because English Heritage's argument that Camborne slates are Brazilian is erroneous. Only the rock is imported. Not only is that raw rock closest in nature to the old Cornish rock, but the slates are hand- finished in Cornwall by Cornish hands--not in Brazil and not in Wales. It is the Cornish heritage, skill and culture that enable the slates to be produced to such a high standard in the county.
Column 860
English Heritage's objections are even more absurd, because when there was a final test in which sample slates were put on the bakehouse roof of the Royal William dockyard, English Heritage approved the Camborne slate and deemed it more suitable than the Spanish or Welsh samples. From the outset, English Heritage favoured a large slate, because all the evidence in the historical records of the yard show that large slates were used. The Welsh cannot produce those, but Camborne can.Perhaps the Minister will explain why English Heritage has acted in such a contradictory fashion. Camborne Natural Slate has been severely misled. Indeed, it seems from the evidence that English Heritage also misled Plymouth development corporation, probably causing it unwittingly to delude the company.
Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton): My hon. Friend mentions Plymouth development corporation, and he will be aware that the project is hugely significant for Plymouth, especially the development of the Royal William dockyard. It is being funded to the tune of £45 million by a Government Department, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd for English Heritage, another organisation funded by the Government, to intervene in such an incompetent manner and mess up the contract? For many of us, that underlines the fact that English Heritage has become too powerful and overbearing, and needs the Government to clip its wings.
Mr. Coe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Only five weeks ago, I enjoyed a morning going around the yard on foot and on the water. Like most people with any knowledge of Plymouth and the south-west, I recognise that the project must be handled at all times with great regard to historical authenticity, and that the public purse is to the fore. Like my hon. Friend, I do not think it unreasonable that, when a publicly funded body is primarily engaged in regenerating an area, contracts should be awarded to locally based companies where possible.
The irrefutable fact of the matter remains. English Heritage was consulted throughout the year-long selection process, and never at any stage expressed an objection to Camborne slates. As I have already explained, the publicly stated reasons for the rejection of the bid--colour, texture, and the need for the slates to be in keeping with the whole--have been shown to be hollow.
There is no evidence that slates from the favoured Welsh quarry are appropriate in colour. The size and colour of the Camborne slates is far closer to the original. In 1828, the specification by the architect Rennie demanded rag slates, which are typically 24 in long or longer, and of various widths. Moreover, the historical evidence suggests that local Cornish slate was used. The slates on which English Heritage insists are smaller and are blue-black rather than grey-green. For the record, they are also significantly more expensive.
I know that Camborne slate is still favoured by the Plymouth development corporation. I received a letter on 30 May from Sir Robert Gerken, its chairman, telling me that the board had decided to accede to English Heritage's insistence that Welsh slate be used, but he added:
"you will be aware that the corporation had been trying, over a considerable period, to get agreement to the Camborne Natural Slate Company's Brazilian import for the job but this was not acceptable to English Heritage where the decision was made at the highest level, namely the Commissioners".
Column 861
The Minister can draw his own conclusions on the background to that letter.The quality of the Camborne slate has never been questioned. The objections now raised by English Heritage are purely aesthetic. Because the use of Welsh slate will be enforced, an additional £250, 000 will be added to the costs of a project funded by the taxpayer. I do not believe that English Heritage made a definitive judgment, let alone a rational judgment, last June or at any time since. Otherwise, logic tells me that the corporation would not have proceeded with the tender, and certainly would not, following the tender, have specified Camborne slate on the applications. I have no doubt that, had the Plymouth development corporation been aware of any reasons why Camborne slate should not have been used, it would have made them clear from the beginning, and would not have allowed tendering from the company to go through to the final contractual stages. Camborne slate has satisfied all the requirements of the tender. It is the preferred choice, and has the full support of the architects. The slates are competitively priced, and the company, just as importantly, is a south-western business.
It does not seem unreasonable that a publicly funded body should, where possible, allocate contracts to firms in the region of the venture. That is what the Plymouth development corporation has attempted to do. If we wish to preserve our traditional industries into the next century, support must be granted to companies such as Camborne Natural Slate. It has, by its own efforts and research, found a way in which to compete effectively with overseas slate producers while retaining 70 per cent. of the revenue in the United Kingdom. That should be applauded, not penalised.
The tender process now seems to have been less than transparent, and I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at it again. I know that the final decision rests with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the matter, especially the concerns that I have raised today.
Frankly, I do not believe that the process was carried out to the high standards that are expected of the public sector. This is one of the biggest heritage refurbishments ever embarked on in the south-west. I am sorry to say that it has left an extremely bad taste in the mouths of many of my constituents.
1.50 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): It may reassure the House if I say first that I am here not because there has been an unexpectedly early reshuffle, but because my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of National Heritage are detained on urgent business. It would not be right, either, if I suggested that an admirable compromise might lie in using good Yorkshire stone mined in the Yorkshire dales in my constituency. I am here to explain, not to act as a mediator. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) for raising the issue; he has expressed clearly the depths of his concern and the
Column 862
concerns of his constituents. I shall explain the background to the involvement of the Department of National Heritage in the case. As my hon. Friend has said, the buildings at the Royal William yard were built between 1825 and 1833 to the design of John Rennie, the engineer to the Admiralty. I have visited them as part of my regular visits to look at our regeneration programmes in the south-west. The yard includes an exceptional and extensive range of buildings which have survived the years very much in their original form. The yard is a rare example of its kind and it is of great national importance, which is why the buildings were scheduled as monuments in 1968. That means that their preservation must be fully considered when proposals are made for development or other work that might damage the buildings or their appearance.Under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, any such proposal must be the subject of an application for scheduled monument consent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. When he considers such an application, he has to seek the professional advice of English Heritage. The developers themselves may, of course, ask for informal advice from English Heritage on the acceptability of their proposals before they make an application to the Department of National Heritage, to smooth the passage of the application. That is what happened in this case. The buildings are the subject of a refurbishment programme being carried out by the Plymouth development corporation. The proposals to replace the present roof coverings form part of that work. The roof is almost always a dominant feature of a building, and the retention or replication of its structure, shape, pitch and ornamentation is important.
Discussions between the development corporation and English Heritage about identifying the right roofing materials began in June last year, some months before the Department received the first of the corporation's applications for scheduled monument consent. Throughout the discussions, English Heritage was willing to consider a range of options for the material. As part of the process, it was willing to look at samples from potential suppliers, including Camborne Natural Slate Ltd. The process was not intended to give approval to that use. If it had been, English Heritage could have been deemed to have endorsed all the samples.
I understand that, between November 1994 and January 1995, the development corporation independently sought tenders for the supply of slates without asking English Heritage to endorse the slates proposed or to agree the specification on which tenders were invited. The corporation received three tenders for the work, one of which--the lowest--was from Camborne Natural Slate which, as my hon. Friend has stated, proposed to use rock mined in Brazil and finished in Cornwall. Following the evaluation of the tenders, the development corporation indicated in a number of its applications for scheduled monument consent that it wished to use Camborne slates.
It is at this point that some confusion appears to have arisen, and I am not absolutely certain that I shall be able to dispel it. My hon. Friend has cited statements made by the development corporation or its consultants that may have given Camborne Natural Slate the impression that English Heritage had in some way endorsed the use of its
Column 863
product. English Heritage, however, maintains categorically that at no time did it give any such endorsement.It maintains that it consistently made it clear to the corporation that the Camborne slates were unacceptable for use on the buildings by virtue of their colour--which English Heritage considers is too green in tone--and their texture, which is too smooth. It was and is English Heritage's professional opinion that the use of Camborne slates would have a visual effect quite out of keeping with the character of this collection of buildings.
It seems that the lines of communication between the development corporation and English Heritage were not as effective as they might have been. As a result, the impressions gained by the company were not as precise as they should have been.
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: I will not give way, because I have very little time left, and I want to reply to my hon. Friend.
Camborne Natural Slate gained the impression that its product was acceptable and that it would be awarded the contract, so it entered into production. But there was no contract, and, in the absence of English Heritage's endorsement of its product and the scheduled monument consent for the works granted by the Secretary of State, there could not be a guarantee that its product would be used. Having subsequently examined the products available from other potential contractors who had submitted tenders, as well as sample panels and further information provided by Camborne Natural Slate, English Heritage concluded that it could only recommend the use of slates of Welsh origin. [Hon. Members:-- "Why?"] As a simple Yorkshireman, I do not wish to enter an argument about the colour of Welsh slates. It says here, however, that Welsh slates are greyer and rougher than the Camborne product, and are considered by English Heritage to be more in keeping with the slates that must have been used originally.
Column 864
My hon. Friend has said that he believes that such slates were not used originally. I cannot arbitrate on this. English Heritage is supposed to be in a position to arbitrate, and it maintains that the possibilities are limited to slates that are Welsh and Cornish in origin. What my hon. Friend has said about the suitability of Camborne slates is based on the assumption that Cornish slates were used originally. It is just as likely that Welsh slates formed the original roof covering. In fact, only Welsh slates are now available in the quantity required.I understand that Camborne Natural Slate maintains that local slates, not Welsh slates, were the most likely to have been used, and that its product most closely resembles the appearance of local slates. English Heritage rejects that view, as it considers the Camborne product to be greener in tone and smoother in texture than Delabole or other local slate.
Mr. Coe: My hon. Friend has done little to dispel any of the concerns that I and hon. Members on both sides have raised. Will he give me an assurance that either he or a Minister from the Department of National Heritage will look again at this process? Frankly, this company in my constituency has been led into a bizarre process.
Mr. Curry: Leaving my brief entirely behind me, it seems that there has been confusion. I do not know enough about the case to say whether it arose entirely because people got their lines muddled, but my inclination would be to say that that is likely. I do not want to start making suggestions about improper activity or influence. I do not think that such suggestions are true.
There is clearly a case to answer about the way in which the three organisations concerned communicated with each other. As a result, impressions have been given which have led to work that may not have been justified. The company, through the mouth of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, has put its case that it was justified in taking the action it did.
I undertake to examine my hon. Friend's point, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will give it his particular attention, and that we will try to respond in detail to the points that have been made. I hope that that will give at least some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
Column 865
Sunday Observance (Northern Ireland)
1.59 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): I listened with great interest to the debate on the colours, sizes and textures of slates. When one debates an Act of Parliament that goes as far back as 1695, was introduced by a Parliament that has been extinct for a couple of centuries and is no longer operative in any part of Ireland except that which is under the jurisdiction of this Parliament, one might be tempted to wonder not only about the texture of the slates but about whether some were slightly loose, if not removed altogether. I am talking about the retention of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695 which was enacted by a Government of Ireland who, as we all know, no longer exist. The Act has been around for three centuries and has caused problems even to this very day. It is impossible to describe the Act except in terms of its own vernacular and terminology. It is informative to realise exactly what is the basis of that law in relation to the operation of district councils. Those were the terms of my application for the debate, which I am pleased to have been able to obtain.
All forms of sport are, in effect, banned on a Sunday in the north of Ireland. For the reason envisaged at the time, one can rely only on the wording of the legislation:
"by reason of tumultuous and disorderly meetings, which have been, and frequently are used on the Lord's-day, commonly called Sunday, under pretence of hurling, commoning, football-playing, cudgels, wrestling, or other sports".
Forgive me for not being able to say what commoning is. I could venture one or two suggestions, but they would probably be wrong. I venture to suggest that I might know what cudgelling is. In the time that I have lived in Northern Ireland, I have never seen it practised--certainly not as a sport.
I have seen hurling played and have played it myself, but hurling as it is now known was invented in about the 1850s. Of course, in the Act it could be a generic term that takes in golf, hockey, what is now known as hurling and anything that involves the malevolent action of hitting a little ball-- whatever it is filled with--along the ground with some form of stick. I assume that that is the hurling spoken of. It is banned within the north of Ireland. It is illegal by the Act of a Parliament that no longer exists. The vestiges of the Act were repealed in the rest of Ireland as late as 1962 but, unfortunately, they are still with us.
It is informative to look at the consequences of the sort of malevolent, disorderly, tumultuous meetings that would take place if we were allowed to kick a ball along the road or knock a round sphere with a stick. The Act states:
"no person or persons whatsoever shall play, use, or exercise any hurling, commoning, football-playing, cudgels, wrestling, or any other games, pastimes, or sports on the Lord's-day, or any part thereof"
is guilty.
That means that the Government, who are represented here by the Under- Secretary with responsibility for the environment--the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-east (Mr. Moss)--are by definition guilty of breaking the law when they give financial assistance to leisure centres in the north of Ireland. In the case of Craigavon council, the centres are not open because of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) of 1695. It also means that every district council in the north of Ireland that opens
Column 866
its leisure centres is in breach of the law. Central and local government are, in effect, breaking the law in their operations in Northern Ireland. We must add to that the number of people, myself included, who, although no longer involved in hurling, are involved in an activity that I described as part of the generic term of hurling, the tumultuous game of golf on a Sunday. Tumultuous and disorderly golf never is; interesting it can be; good it seldom is--but, under the terms of the legislation, it is illegal. Of course, one could go on for ever drawing conclusions from the legislation. Every country in the world has its anachronisms. Every country has pieces of legislation that lie there and do not matter. Every country in the world has elements in its constitution or corpus of law that may be as well left lying in the corner rather than risk raising the atavisms that surround removing them. The problem is that this anachronism is being used now.I quote directly from a letter from the clerk of Craigavon council dated 24 May 1995 sent to each member of the council. It is headed "Sunday Opening of Leisure Centres" and states:
"It was brought to my attention on Monday evening that the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695 were still operative and had never been amended or repealed.
Under Section 3 of the 1695 Act, copy attached, it is unlawful for anyone to take part in any Sport on a Sunday.
I sought the advice of the Borough Solicitor who has verbally confirmed yesterday evening that the Borough Council would be in contravention of the law if it opened the Leisure Centres next Sunday, 28 May, as planned. I am awaiting his written advice and will forward a copy to each Member immediately it is received.
In order to safeguard the council's interests I have instructed the Director of Leisure Services not to open the three Leisure Centres until Council has had an opportunity to consider the legal advice."
As a result, young, middle-aged and elderly people--all sorts of people--in the Craigavon area are denied the use of their leisure centres. What takes place in these leisure centres? Badminton, five-a-side football and indoor bowls. They are hardly of a tumultuous nature, yet that archaic, outdated legislation is quoted by the clerk of the district council when he overrules the decision of his council to open those leisure centres. He did that in the name of legislation that dates back to 1695 and is still operative. Of course, there have been changes to the law in relation to cinemas, child adoption and the removal of penalties. However, essentially the Sunday observance legislation still applies, and it is illegal, as the clerk of the council says, to take part on a Sunday in the activities that I have described.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as time is short. I want to clarify one point. He referred to the actions of the clerk of Craigavon council in my constituency. Is he suggesting that the clerk acted wrongly in following the legislation which is undoubtedly in force? Is he suggesting that it would have been right for the clerk to disregard the legislation once it had been brought to his attention?
Mr. Mallon: I make no judgment whatsoever about the clerk of Craigavon council--far be it from me to do so. However, to respond in terms of the hon. Gentleman's question, if the clerk in question were right, all other clerks operating leisure centres in the north of Ireland would be wrong under the law. Not only are district councils acting against the law, but so are the central
Column 867
Government and anyone who switches on a television set on a Sunday. If BBC Northern Ireland decides to show a football match on a Sunday or if UTV decides to beam in the rugby World cup final or semi-final from South Africa, they are most surely breaking the law as well. This incredible situation has been allowed to continue for a long time.I hope that the Under-Secretary will be in a position to say that the Government recognise that the legislation is an anachronism and nonsense and that it has absolutely no place in the world in which we live. I hope that he will recognise that it has been used down the years for atavistic reasons by people who want to cater for their own specific entrenched point of view rather than the general view that would be adopted by the vast majority of people in the north of Ireland. I hope that that is what the Under-Secretary will tell me. I hope that he does not fudge the issue and make excuses about whether the core of the legislation can be tackled.
Of course, if the legislation affected golf clubs, it would be dealt with, as it would if it affected the racing fraternity of which, I confess, I am a member. I hope that the Government will introduce legislation to enable me to go to a race meeting legally on a Sunday and, when I get there, to place a bet legally. I hope that, when the race is over, I can legally collect my money.
The current legislation, however, affects people in every sector of the north of Ireland, whatever their leisure activity. It is crucial for the young person in a built-up area who has no motor car and whose only facilities are in a leisure centre. Parents know their children are safe and supervised by professional assistants in leisure centres. It is those young people who suffer from the nonsense of the 1695 Act. I hope that the Under-Secretary will refer to them when, as I believe he must, he tells me shortly that the Act is to be repealed in its entirety as it applies to the north of Ireland.
Sooner or later, our legislation must show the plurality of the people in the north of Ireland. Those who want to have a strict Sunday observance regime are entitled to do so, and I would defend their right to it. Those who wish to participate in sport, by active involvement or by watching it, also have their rights.
However, there are two overriding priorities in a society such as the north of Ireland. First, no legislation--especially not that which goes back to 1695--should be such that it can be used or trawled by a small section of the community to promote and further its own entrenched views at the expense of others and, most usually, at the expense of those least able to help themselves. That must surely be a priority for the Minister.
Secondly, we are trying to develop a society in the north of Ireland in which people adopt the attitude that, although something may be different from what we were brought up to believe, we can nevertheless, despite the deep divisions, recognise the views and, indeed, the prejudices of others.
I make no pejorative comments about Craigavon council or its clerk, but I do criticise the 1695 Act. It is unbelievable that such nonsense is still on the statute book. Above all, I would be censorious of a Government who kept that anachronism in place because of their reluctance to take on some of the dyed-in-the-wool attitudes that they know exist in the north of Ireland. Other people suffer for those attitudes, and it is time that those attitudes were challenged.
Column 868
I suggest that those attitudes are challenged now, because no one reading the legislation could justify it in any shape, form or sense. The time is now right to deal with it once and for all, so that it does not crop up as it cropped up in Craigavon. We do not know what we shall be starting, but we do know that, if the clerk of Craigavon council is right according to the legal advice, all the other district councils in the north of Ireland are wrong. If the clerk of the council is right in Craigavon, the Government and others are breaking the law through their subventions to leisure centres and other recreational and sporting activities.The choice is whether we have a pluralistic society and are prepared to work for it or whether we are to be hidebound by such nonsense as the Sunday Observance (Ireland) Act 1695, which was passed by a Parliament that is now extinct, which was created three centuries ago and which has helped to perpetuate the entrenched views of one small section of the community. The Government have an obligation to remove any source of authority for this type of legislation and the abuse of it.
2.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on his success in securing this debate. I should like to start by putting him out of his misery and uncertainty by telling him that I believe the word "commoning" refers to marbles. He spoke at some length about the plurality of the society in Northern Ireland, and I should have thought that playing marbles was a tradition on both sides of northern Irish society.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the effect of the Sunday observance regulations on district councils. It is, indeed, a topic that has a long history in Northern Ireland. Debate on legislative restrictions on activities that may be undertaken on Sundays is not unique to Northern Ireland. Recent changes in the law elsewhere in the United Kingdom prompted the Government to publish two consultation papers earlier this year to seek local opinion on Sunday-related issues.
One consultation paper was on Sunday racing, betting and sport. It sought comments on possible changes to the law in Northern Ireland: first, to allow Sunday racing on horse and greyhound tracks and to regularise the legal position of other sports--I emphasise the words "other sports"-- already held on Sundays; secondly, to allow betting on Sundays on horse and greyhound tracks and in licensed bookmaking offices; and, thirdly, to provide employment protection measures for workers in the betting industry.
The second consultation paper, on Sunday trading and other changes to the Northern Ireland shops law, sought comments on possible changes to the law in Northern Ireland: first, to allow shops to trade in all goods on Sundays, while restricting most larger shops to six hours trading; secondly, to provide employment protection measures for employees who work on Sundays; and, thirdly, to amend or repeal other provisions in the Shops Act (Northern Ireland) 1946, now considered to be out of date. The proposals are very much in line with recent legislation for England and Wales. District councils have a particular interest in the Sunday trading paper because they are responsible for enforcing the existing shops law-- the 1946 Act.
Column 869
My ministerial colleagues and I are now considering the responses received to both consultation exercises, and announcements on the way forward will be made in due course.If it is decided to relax the current legislative restrictions on these matters, some action may be necessary to repeal, amend or disapply specific provisions of the Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695. There are already precedents on the statute book for disapplication or restriction of the 1695 Act. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh mentioned two of them, but I shall go through them again so that we are clear.
The first amendment was the Cinemas (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which allowed for the Sunday opening of cinemas, to which I think the hon. Gentleman referred. The second was the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, to which I think he also referred. The 1946 Act amended substantial portions of the 1695 Act, and allowed the operation of shops on Sundays in accordance with the 1946 Act. The final amendment was the Fisheries Amendment (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, which again made changes to the 1695 Act. The precedent is that the Act has been changed on four occasions.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I appreciate the fact that the Minister has given way. I understand that the Government have been considering the responses. Is it possible for us to know how many responses were received and how they balanced out? The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was talking about leisure centres, and I understand that market forces compel some councils to close them because they are not used on Sundays.
Mr. Moss: Taking the second point first, that is a valid argument. That has, indeed, been the case in some council leisure centres, but I think that the majority would keep them open, given the choice. On the first question, I believe that we had more than 1,000 responses against any changes to Sunday trading and more than 1,000 for a change, so the consultation process brought an even match on either side of the argument.
I turn now to the leisure and sports centres operated by district councils in Northern Ireland. In the 1940s and 1950s there was a debate about whether swings, roundabouts, slides and so forth in local parks should be chained to prevent children playing on them on a Sunday. Then came the provision by local councils of swimming pools, followed some time later by leisure centres, when the whole debate about Sunday opening came to the fore again; indeed, it is still going on, albeit to a more limited extent.
The pros and cons of Sunday opening have been hotly debated in council chambers, with councillors fervently putting across their points of view. I would fully accept that a great many of the arguments against Sunday opening were based entirely on an individual councillor's personal convictions. In other instances, councillors believed that there was nothing wrong with people engaging in leisure activities on Sundays. In a great many other cases, however, I suspect that the decision to open or close the facilities had more to do with party politics than with councillors' personal convictions about the matter.
| Next Section
| Home Page |