| Home Page |
Column 101
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are a defender of the liberty of individual Members of Parliament, and I also agree with your advice that hon. Members on both sides of the House should show each other more courtesy. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that during the recent by-election certain representatives of the Labour party were very beastly to the--
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I am not involved in by-elections; I need to know the Standing Order and the procedure with which the hon. Gentleman wishes me to deal.
Mr. Fabricant: The point of order, Madam Speaker, is that people have been very beastly to the Liberal Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), and have been questioning his recommendations that people should use cannabis and that it should be legalised. Is that not very unfair, as the Opposition Front Bench is now making the same recommendations?
Madam Speaker: That is a total abuse of the House's time. I shall take no similar points of order; points of order must relate to questions with which I can deal, as Speaker of the House.
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House may be aware by now that, after what has been internationally condemned as a show trial, Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa, the international environmentalist and social campaigner, has today been sentenced to death with no right of appeal. That is a matter of great concern. Has there been any indication, Madam Speaker, that a British Minister may respond, bring pressure to save the lives of Mr. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues and make a statement in the House?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Minister that he or she is prepared to make a statement today.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate a ruling on what is said in "Erskine May" about the abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time. Page 287 clearly states:
"Questions which seek an expression of an opinion, or which contain arguments, expressions of opinion, inferences or imputations, unnecessary epithets, or rhetorical, controversial, ironical or offensive expressions, are not in order."
In recent weeks, Conservative Members have asked an increasing number of questions that should really be addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. Many of my hon. Friends would approve of the idea of a Leader of the Opposition's Question Time, but we do not have one. Prime Minister's Question Time should be precisely that, but the Prime Minister is increasingly dodging legitimate questions by employing dubious devices originating from the Whips Office to ensure that questions are addressed to the Leader of the Opposition which only the Prime Minister can answer.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that today I cautioned a Conservative Member that questions put to the Prime Minister must not relate to the Opposition. All Ministers are responsible to the House
Column 102
for the workings of the Government and Departments, not for the attitude of the Opposition or any of the minority parties. I hope that my words will be noted by all concerned and that, in future, questions will be put to Ministers on matters for which they have responsibility and accountability to the House.Mr. David Shaw (Dover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A Member of the House receives £5,500 from ASLEF in sponsorship and has booked a room in the Parliamentary Estate on Thursday to meet a number of my constituents in connection with the £5,500 that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) receives. Is that not corrupt use of House of Commons facilities and should not it be stopped because it is a Labour party meeting for the benefit of the ASLEF sponsorship that the Member receives?
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I think what the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise is further to the point of order. Serious allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I ask him to put them in writing to me so that I may respond properly because I am not quite clear about what he is insinuating. Such points of order must be put in writing so that the allegations are clear.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose --
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not true.
Madam Speaker: Order. It may or may not be true. I wish to see the evidence supporting the allegations so that I may deal with them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any representations from the Deputy Prime Minister who has now been geared up with a £150,000 machine with which he is wired up to every Cabinet Minister? Has there been any request for him to answer questions for every Minister? He has a spy in a cabin over there and the taxpayers are having to foot the bill for this £150,000 desk diary. In Derbyshire, that would buy a desk, a diary, a roof to put over people's heads, five rooms which could be stuffed full of furniture and a Rover Sterling car to put in the garage. It is an abuse of taxpayers' money and it ought to be condemned by all of us.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, all hon. Members are aware, this matter will appear in the estimates. When they are debated, no doubt Members will notice it. In the meantime, there may be opportunities for an Adjournment debate on the matter. The estimates will come before the House for debate.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in the House on the alteration of her policy, which clearly shows that the Labour party is now soft on the greatest cause of crime? Have you received any such request to show that the Leader of the Opposition proposes to dispense with that shadow Secretary of State
Column 103
following his demotion of her predecessor? To lose one shadow Secretary of State may be a misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness.Madam Speaker: Order. This is a totally disgraceful abuse of the House's time. I will not take the trouble to respond to questions such as that which do not come near a point of order.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have observed from the remaining Orders of the Day that there are no fewer than five pages of closely printed amendments to Standing Orders, most of them amending matters that are not contentious, such as Wednesday morning sittings and those which save the time of the House. However, you will recall that, when these matters were debated a year ago, there were three or four Divisions on matters of principle because some hon. Members believed that even the experimental orders permanently removed the powers of private Members as against the Government. In addition, the one that slipped through was for the removal of the opportunity for private Members' ballot motions to be debated in the House, and I understand that that is something of an historic privilege.
I have given notice to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House suggesting that, due to the importance of those amendments, which are to be permanent, the time given on Thursday, prior to an important debate that the whole country wants to watch and know about, will be inadequate for a proper consideration of the amendments, that we should take the precedent of a Bill and have at least a weekend before we can debate them, and that we should therefore debate them early next Session, rather than in a hurried and controversial manner on Thursday.
Madam Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and that he has given notice to the Leader of the House on this matter. If he wishes, however, to alter our practice concerning the period of notice before motions are debated, I suggest that he asks the Procedure Committee to consider the matter. As to the timing of the debate on the motions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may I remind him that, on Friday last and without objection, the House ordered that all necessary questions to dispose of procedures on the motions should be put after two hours' debate on Thursday 2 November.
Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. After all the attention over the summer given to the spread of the Internet, have you had any requests to install in the Chamber computers linked to the Internet, not least to ensure that Opposition spokesmen know the line from their party leader and the spin doctors, rather than being encouraged to speak their own minds?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you establish whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) gave notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that he intended to raise in this House an issue that he knew not to be true?
Madam Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) did give notice, as is usual in the House, but he is here and can now speak for himself.
Column 104
Mr. David Shaw: The facts with that information came through immediately before I came into the House. May I point out to Opposition Members that the hon. Member--Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I take it from that that no notice was given.
Mr. Shaw rose --
Madam Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman conform with the courtesies of the House is all I am asking.
Mr. Shaw: On that point of order, Madam Speaker, you will recall that I wrote to you to make the point that that particular hon. Member did not inform me before visiting my constituency.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, Monday and Tuesday, we will debate the important questions relating to Nolan. Before each of those three debates, will it be in order for you to say to all Members that they should declare what consultancies and directorships they have and, in particular, what moneys they earn from outside businesses?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present in the House yesterday. [Interruption.] Is he listening--he has just put a point of order to me. Perhaps he was not present in the House yesterday when I made it clear that, in any debates of that nature, I expect all hon. Members--that is, Members on both sides of the House--to declare any pecuniary interests.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you clarify then and say that hon. Members must name each specific interest that they have, rather than--
Madam Speaker: Order. I am going no further. Hon. Members know precisely what is expected of them when they declare an interest.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has become abundantly apparent in recent months that points of order are used to name hon. Members in a way which, if broadcast outside and found not to be true, would give rise to substantial libel damages. The courtesies of the House also require that, in every case, notice is given to an hon. Member who another Member proposes to name. Clearly, that has not been done in many cases. Might not this be an opportunity for you to reconsider the rules of the House and to make giving notice mandatory?
Madam Speaker: We have a great many privileges in the House. What disturbs me enormously is that responsibility is not matched with the privileges that we have. Members of Parliament choose special times of the day and special days of the week in which what they say across the Floor of the House will be highlighted by the media. I deprecate very much many of the exchanges that are not at all genuine points of order which take place across the Floor of the House to attempt to seek publicity. I hope that Members will reflect on what I have said, and in future will put to me only real points of order that deal with our Standing Orders, proceedings and other matters with which the Speaker of this House can properly deal.
Column 105
Water (Conservation and Miscellaneous Provisions)3.44 pm
Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the conservation of water by the establishment of mandatory water leakage targets for water undertakers and by encouraging the installation of water efficient fittings in homes; to provide for the review of abstraction licences which affect sites of nature conservation value; to give domestic consumers greater choice as to methods of charging for the supply of water; and to provide for the payment of compensation in relation to drought orders.
I am grateful for the chance to introduce the Bill, which, although a small Bill, is made significant by the failure of the water industry to cope with this year's hot dry summer. Its object is to place conservation at the heart of water management, in a way that both protects wildlife and ensures constant supplies to meet all our needs in homes and industry without the use of crude price rationing for the poor and more vulnerable.
Behind that objective lies the fact that, whatever the industry's management structure, water belongs to us all, and is in true common ownership. To squander that precious resource affects not only us but every plant, bird and animal.
The Bill seeks to achieve that objective in four ways, the first of which concerns leakage. Public anger spilled over this summer as company after company sought drought orders, hosepipe bans and, in the Yorkshire area, stand-pipes and cut-offs. That anger was fuelled by the growing awareness that because of leaking pipes, half a million gallons of treated drinking water is wasted every minute of every day--enough to serve the daily needs of an extra 26 million households.
Labour's campaign to highlight that scandal has now been backed by the National Rivers Authority report, "The Drought of `95", published last month, which said:
"Leakage is an area where in knowledge, the UK is without doubt a world leader, but in practice has some of the highest leakage rates in the world".
My Bill calls for mandatory targets to be set, monitored and enforced by the Government through the Environment Agency, in close consultation with the companies and the water regulator. The power to penalise companies for failure would rest with the new agency rather than with Ofwat, whose approach to leakage has been disappointing, constrained by its limited focus on economic factors rather than the wider conservation picture.
Two weeks ago, in a letter to the Secretary of State, the Water Services Association promised an enhanced programme of leakage reduction at no extra cost to customers. That is most welcome, and recognises for the first time that leakage reduction is the prime factor in water conservation. My Bill will ensure that those fine words are followed by effective action and investment.
Secondly, my Bill examines how homes could be designed to conserve water without changing usage patterns involving hygiene and our basic needs. Plentiful use of clean water remains the foundation for a high level of public health. The Bill seeks to minimise people's need for water by promoting water-efficient fittings in the home, rather than by using blunt economic tools simply to drive down demand.
Column 106
For example, a programme to replace all the nation's older 9-litre toilet cisterns with new 6-litre varieties would in itself save more than 10 per cent. of present household usage. If half the baths that we take were replaced by showers--I do not advocate the Yorkshire Water chairman's advice to forgo baths and showers altogether--we should save a further 4 per cent.Those savings are technically simple to achieve and permanent, and they would be popular because they cause no added inconvenience to customers. They are also more equitable than metering, as they are not made at the disproportionate expense of poorer customers, and are cheaper than the £200 per property cost of metering, especially as there are no continuing billing costs.
My Bill uses the new duty inserted into the Water Industry Act 1991 by the Environment Act 1995, adding a clause requiring water undertakers to devise grant schemes to help with the cost of installing the efficiency measures.
Customers who respond to the call for greater water efficiency would then be rewarded by a reduction in their bills to reflect their lower consumption. Companies would receive both the benefits of reduced demand, and their success or otherwise would be a recognised factor in price negotiations. The Government document "Water Conservation" endorses some of that approach, stresses the value of transferring to low-flush toilets and suggests that water byelaws and building regulations should be used to enforce the fitting of water-saving devices. We look forward to further work on this. The Bill attempts to offer the necessary incentives to companies and customers to get some action. One response of the water companies to the summer shortage was to rush to the Secretary of State for drought orders, which would enable them to do two things--to take more supplies from the rivers and to escape liability for compensation. The Bill addresses both areas.
Section 79 of the Water Resources Act 1991 deals with the payment of compensation where a drought order has been made. There is no provision in the accompanying schedule for compensation for interruptions in supplies brought about by emergency drought orders. Moreover, interruptions in supply caused by ordinary drought orders are exempt from the provisions of the guaranteed standard scheme, unless covered in a specific contract with a particular business. The horrendous threat of 24-hour cut-offs hangs today over the people of Halifax and Bradford in Yorkshire. The courts need to prepare for countless test cases for financial loss--or worse--in the event of a fire which might cause injury, or even death, which might have been prevented had a source of running water been available. The action proposed in my Bill on compensation has been endorsed strongly by all the consumer bodies, and only last Friday by Ofwat's customer services committee.
But we cannot simply rob the lifeblood of fish, otters and other wildlife and drain the rivers dry in response to our failure to conserve the nation's resource. The Bill places water conservation at the heart of environment policy, where it belongs. It instructs the Environment Agency to review every abstraction licence
"which may be having a significant damaging effect upon a site of nature conservation value".
Where such damaging effect is found, the Bill will seek to revoke or vary the licence accordingly.
Column 107
Many hon. Members will remember that half an hour before the end of the debate on Report of the Environment Act 1995--at 11.55 pm precisely--and after 75 hours of debate in Committee, the Government tabled a new clause about water conservation. There was no time for a considered amendment and no time for a proper debate. The Bill seeks to put that right, and it has the support of all the officers of the all- party parliamentary group on water and many outside organisations. I commend it to the House.Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Paul Tyler, Ms Joan Ruddock, Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. David Nicholson, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Max Madden.
Water (Conservation and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Mrs. Helen Jackson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the conservation of water by the establishment of mandatory water leakage targets for water undertakers and by encouraging the installation of water efficient fittings in homes; to provide for the review of abstraction licences which affect sites of nature conservation value; to give domestic consumers greater choice as to methods of charging for the supply of water; and to provide for the payment of compensation in relation to drought orders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]
Column 108
Disability Discrimination Bill ( Ways and Means ) 3.54 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees received by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund. This resolution covers amendment No. 62, which relates to fees charged as part of the procedure for ensuring that public service vehicles are accessible to people with disabilities. The Bill provides for two means by which manufacturers may have their vehicles certified as accessible. The first approach, and one that we expect to be used most often, provides for individual vehicles to be certified as meeting accessibility requirements. That is closely modelled on the existing procedures for ensuring that buses and coaches meet the necessary safety and environmental standards--the certificate of initial fitness procedure.
The second approach, which will be available to manufacturers producing vehicles in larger volume, is a system under which a type vehicle is approved and manufacturers may then produce subsequent vehicles without individual inspection, so long as there are satisfactory arrangements to ensure conformity of production. That too mirrors existing arrangements for the type approval of buses and coaches. There is also a system of review and appeal when a manufacturer is aggrieved at the decision of a vehicle examiner not to issue a certificate.
The new clause, amendment No. 62, simply provides for fees to be levied to cover the Government's costs relating to the approval and certification procedure. That approach is well precedented in existing vehicle construction legislation.
3.55 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West): The Minister has set the scene for the Government's U-turns and climb downs on so many issues on disability, which we will be debating this afternoon. In that spirit, I welcome what he had to say at the eleventh hour, and invite the House to agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees received by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund.
Column 109
Orders of the Day
Disability Discrimination Bill
Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
Ordered,
That the Lords amendments be considered in the following order: Amendments Nos. 1 to 29, Amendments Nos. 31 to 170 and Amendment No. 30.--[ Mr. Burt. ]
New clause
Past Disabilities
Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause- -
(".--(1) The provisions of this Part and Parts II and III apply in relation to a person who has had a disability as they apply in relation to a person who has that disability.
(2) Those provisions are subject to the modifications made by Schedule ( Past disabilities ).
(3) Any regulations or order made under this Act may include provision with respect to persons who have had a disability. (4) In any proceedings under Part II or Part III of this Act, the question whether a person had a disability at a particular time ("the relevant time") shall be determined, for the purposes of this section, as if the provisions of, or made under, this Act in force when the act complained of was done had been in force at the relevant time. (5) The relevant time may be a time before the passing of this Act.")
3.56 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 67 to 70, 72, 74, 77, 79, 91, 97, 98, 113 to 123, 129 and 130.
Mr. Burt: This group of amendments relates primarily to part I of the Bill. The main changes involve extending the Bill's protection to cover people who have had a disability; putting human immune deficiency virus on the face of the Bill as an example of a progressive condition; introducing an additional power to make regulations stipulating effects on normal day- to-day activities which are to be treated as being, or, as the case may be, not being, substantial effects; and making the clause 2 guidance subject to the negative procedure. The remaining amendments are of a minor nature and are largely for clarification.
I shall speak to a couple of the more substantial amendments in the group, which will extend the provisions of the Bill to people with a past disability and honour a commitment made on Report on 22 May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said that the Government accepted that the Bill should confer protection against discrimination on people who have had a disability that meets the Bill's definition.
Hon. Members will recall that the Bill did not initially protect people against discrimination related to a disability from which they had recovered to the extent that they no longer experienced a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Column 110
We were persuaded that people who have had a disability need the same degree of protection as will be available to disabled people. It is an important part of the recovery process to be able to participate in social activities and to engage in employment. Discrimination, which undermines recovery by blocking access to employment or services, would be particularly damaging.Amendment No. 121 places on the face of the Bill
"infection by the human immunodeficiency virus"
as an example of a progressive condition. It has always been our policy that people who have such a condition will be protected by the Bill from the moment that it leads to an impairment that has any effect on that person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, whether or not the effect is substantial. The examples included no viral conditions and the amendment has helped to correct that omission.
We have made it clear before that people with HIV will be covered by the Bill only if they meet all the requirements of schedule 1(7), that is, not until the first effect on normal day-to-day activities manifests itself. As the great majority of people with HIV infection are symptom-free, they would not be covered. HIV is a progressive condition and Lords amendment No. 121 gives it as a fourth example of such a condition.
Sir Michael Neubert (Romford): I am indebted to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the innovation embodied in Lords amendment No. 121 at a time when concern has been expressed in connection with another Bill. Could he estimate what the cost to the state will be as a result of the change?
Mr. Burt: The number of people expected to be brought under the Bill is negligible because the Bill, in its original form, was intended to cover people with progressive conditions anyway. The inclusion of HIV in the Bill has not changed the Bill's intentions towards progressive conditions or towards people who may have had HIV in any case. It uses HIV as an example of a viral condition and makes it clear that people can come under the terms of the Bill even if they have such a condition. The amendment only established that on the face of the Bill. Therefore, there is no extra cost.
Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): The hon. Gentleman said that the cost of what is proposed is minimal. At what stage does he expect to be able to say anything about the total cost of the Bill as amended? Has he any idea of what the total cost of what the Government are proposing will be?
Mr. Burt: That is not really at issue. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the total cost of the Bill will depend, to some extent, on the speed with which regulations are brought into effect. The main difference between the Bills offered by the Government and the Opposition has been that to introduce the Bill too rapidly would increase the costs to those who are going to be expected to provide goods and services in future. Our method of introducing the Bill over a period will mean that the costs will be reasonable for industry, while still matching the aspirations of disabled people.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the Minister, who, as always, was as helpful as was possible. I mentioned the total cost of what is proposed because such great play was made about the cost of my Bill--the Civil Rights
Column 111
(Disabled Persons) Bill. It was said repeatedly that that would cost £17 billion. If the Government felt able to make that costing, how long will it be before they can cost what is proposed in this much different Bill?
| Next Section
| Home Page |