| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Spellar: The hon. and learned Gentleman, like a number of Conservative Members, regularly cites these two cases as though they somehow disprove the proposition. In fact, in many ways they are an endorsement of it. British Airways and the Duke of Westminster, like many other donors to the Conservative party, had an expectation that matters that were going to be in their interests would be decided in their interests. We do not hear from the hon. Gentleman about people who get their knighthoods, get their peerages and get the decisions in their favour. We hear about people who had that expectation but had it frustrated.
Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman should do us the courtesy of reading--and, if he has read it, understanding--the evidence that was given to the Home Affairs Select Committee. The same canards were produced by Labour members of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the hearings before us 18 months ago. It beggars belief how those hon. Members who asked those
questions could do so with a straight face, bearing in mind the history of abuse of the honours system engineered by the Labour party in the past 50 or 60 years--but let us leave that aside.
The simple point, and the answer to the question by the hon. Member for Warley, West, was given clearly by my right hon. Friend the then chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.
Perhaps the Labour party has been out of Government for so long that Labour Members do not realise it, but there is a thing called the Honours Committee, which scrutinises all applications for honours. Every time that an application is made for a political honour, the Committee scrutinises it to ensure that it is a proper application. Every time that there is a "big business" application, the Committee, which is made up of members of all parties--or at least the three big parties--scrutinises it to ensure that the honour is being awarded, not for political skulduggery, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, but for public service or for service to industry, to exports or to charity.
The suggestion that is constantly repeated by Labour Members simply to make childish-sounding debating points does them no credit. It would do the hon. Member for Warley, West a great deal more credit if he were to take the trouble to read not only his hon. Friend's minority report but the all-party majority report, which is here for all to see.
The conclusion that the Home Affairs Select Committee reached on this aspect of its report was that
That is a sensible working arrangement, which accepts and respects the privacy of the individual to donate money to whomever and to whatever organisation he or she considers appropriate.
The Committee said that it did not believe that any limit on the amount a donor could give would be acceptable in British circumstances. It dealt with company donations; I invite hon. Members to read the passages about that, because I know that the hon. Member for Tooting wishes to speak and I am reasonably sure that other Conservative Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting):
I shall not waste the time of the House commenting on the previous speech.
The debate has been very interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) has done a service by bringing the matter to the attention of the House, even though time has been limited, because the general public obviously wish to know who funds political parties.
We heard, as we always do, about the trade union movement. I am a sponsored trade union Member, and all the moneys that are allocated to my political party are very clearly recorded.
I wish to speak about Mr. Asil Nadir. I am chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group in the House, so this issue is of very great interest to me.
Before people start to criticise the length of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West, they should read the Official Report on Monday and see the fanatical interventions that he faced.
Mr. Nadir met very senior members of the Conservative party many times over a very long period. We know that they have admitted that he gave very substantial sums to the Conservative party. I understand that the former party chairman, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), has never denied that. All he has said is, "I am not really sure, and we are not really sure, whether that money was stolen. Until we are certain, we will hang on to it." We know that Mr. Nadir had the opportunity to meet senior Conservative Cabinet Ministers and senior Back-Bench Members. We are in no doubt--Mr. Nadir said it himself--that he was looking for a knighthood. He did not receive one and he must have been extremely disappointed.
It became known that Mr. Nadir was a crook--I choose my words carefully: he was and is a crook and is sheltering in occupied northern Cyprus. We learned more about Mr. Nadir's failed business activities. All hon. Members know that, under parliamentary convention, one hon. Member does not interfere in another hon. Member's constituency unless he or she is asked about constituency issues--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday 26 April.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [9 February].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 26 April.
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [9 February].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 26 April.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Second Reading what day? No day named.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 May.
DANGEROUS DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 May.
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 April.
Ordered,
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you bring to the attention of Madam Speaker when you next see her the objections that were made to two Bills today--Bills Nos. 5 and 10, especially Bill No. 10? We have spent much of this morning discussing the important issues surrounding Bill No. 10. Will you bring to the attention of Madam Speaker the utter disgust felt by many hon. Members that the Government Whip deliberately objected to both those Bills.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
That is not a matter for the Chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Wells.]
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North):
I am delighted to bring before the House today the important subject of air pollution, particularly as it affects my constituency and the city of Nottingham. Last week, three 11-year-old pupils of Southglade junior school in Bestwood park in my constituency wrote to me about the issue. Abby Herod, Laura Bowen and Zoe Tolcher said in their letter:
I should like to dedicate today's debate to those three young people, and to the many others in my constituency who have this week discussed the issue of air pollution in Nottingham and elsewhere.
Those young people will be the main campaigners when we tackle the problem seriously in the future. They will save the planet from air pollution, and they will see through the policies necessary to ensure that our air is once again fit to breathe.
Local media will also play an important role. The local newspaper, the Nottingham Evening Post, has led a vociferous air quality campaign in our city. It is essential that the politicians and the decision-makers--I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), is to respond to the debate--are informed about public opinion.
We have no choice but to breathe air which continues to be polluted. Poor air quality causes poor health. Britain's air quality has deteriorated by 35 per cent. in the past 10 years. Asthma kills about 2,000 people a year, and one in seven children in Nottingham are affected by asthma, like children in every constituency throughout the land.
The link between air pollution and worsening asthma conditions is now well accepted. A recent study in Birmingham found that children admitted to hospital with asthma were more likely to live close to busy roads than those who were admitted for other reasons. Government research has linked airborne particles to lung and heart disease. It is now accepted that lower levels of pollution than originally thought adversely affect health.
Much good work has been done in this area in Nottingham and elsewhere, dating back to the 1950s. The most obvious pollutants have been dealt with: the smoke and sulphur dioxide created by coal burning and factory emissions have been subject to ever greater controls. However, the main air pollution villain in modern Britain, including in my constituency, is the motor car and other vehicular traffic which burns diesel and petrol fuels.
Unfortunately, delays in Government funding for Nottingham's automatic urban monitoring station mean that I do not have the precise figures for Nottingham's air quality. However, I imagine that they are not dissimilar to the figures for London's air quality. In London, traffic is responsible for 99 per cent. of carbon monoxide emissions, 76 per cent. of nitrogen oxides and 96 per cent.
of black smoke, including particulates. It is a sad record, but I am delighted to report that the local authorities in Nottingham and the surrounding area are working hard to solve the problem, and they have made a great deal of progress.
Despite 85 per cent. of its revenue being at the beck and call of Government--like that of most other local authorities--Nottingham has set about tackling the air pollution problem. I pay tribute to those in the city and in the county council--both at officer and at councillor level--for their hard work. I shall give some examples of that work.
Nottingham city council has introduced a pioneering scheme, the green commuter scheme, which I had the privilege of helping to launch several months ago. It aims to reduce traffic congestion and to improve air quality. The county council is encouraging its staff to car-share and to use their cars less for journeys to work--the first time that any county council has introduced such a scheme.
The same two councils have been involved in conducting pioneering research with Dr. Margaret Bell and her team at the university of Nottingham. Pollution monitors worth £140,000 are now in place at schools, roundabouts and junctions in and around Nottingham, and they are linked to the urban traffic control centre. Those devices monitor traffic flow--the stops and starts, the congestion and the pollution--and produce a report on the city's air quality. The project hopes that, by revealing how changes in transport affect the quality of environment, it will encourage ideas on reducing the need for travel and promoting public transport by encouraging people to live closer to their place of work, use bicycles or, where appropriate, walk to work.
I hope that the Minister will take up my offer to come to Nottingham and see that valuable work. I know that he will be impressed, and I very much hope that he will feel that it is some of the best practice in the United Kingdom, which he may wish to share with other local authorities to encourage them.
Nottinghamshire is the first county council to display travel information on the Internet, and it hopes shortly to explore the use of cable television and variable message signs to help reduce congestion by getting information about the state of our roads to people in their homes before they leave for work or leisure activities, thus, one hopes, helping them to decide whether to leave the car at home and use public transport.
Those local councils have proved that, if they are given the tools, they will get on with the job and help to tackle the problem of air quality and pollution in our city. We all know that much more could be done. Local authorities such as Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, although they have an excellent record in tackling air quality, as demonstrated by the introduction of smoke control areas--one needs only to talk to councillors and council officers--know that they could do a heck of a lot more if the Government helped and encouraged them along the way.
For example, work could start quickly to minimise hot spots, where pollution is particularly chronic, and to reduce the incidence of summer and winter smog. It is necessary first to pinpoint the most severe problems and measure the pollution, and then take action to alleviate it.
Councillor John Hartshorne, the chairman of the council's environment committee, told me that Nottingham was keen to be one of the pilot areas tackling traffic pollution problems, but the Government rejected its bid. Along with a number of forward-thinking authorities, Nottingham scraped together its precious spare cash--that is indeed a precious commodity in these days of restraints on local council spending--and paid for its own traffic pollution monitoring facilities.
The local authorities that were chosen for the pilot projects on congestion monitoring were given only £3 million, as opposed to the £15 million that they calculated as necessary to do the job adequately.
Another way in which councils could be encouraged to tackle the problem of local air pollution and air quality involves car and lorry exhaust checks. Half all traffic pollution is generated by just 10 per cent. of the vehicles, so spot checks on cars and lorries are vital. However, only the police have the power to stop vehicles.
I am not asking the Minister to make a snap judgment today, but to go away and think about an issue that he and the Government have already considered and that needs to be re-examined. There should be discussions with the police to figure out how that power could be shared, so that local councils, perhaps working with the Vehicle Inspectorate, in certain tightly defined circumstances could have the power to stop vehicles.
An immense number of practical problems need to be resolved. We would not want people to pretend to be vehicle inspectors or local authority employees in order to stop people who were driving alone at night, but if the power were tightly defined, perhaps by agreeing certain hours and certain places where vehicles could be stopped, and if the individuals were appropriately uniformed and had appropriately screened, local authorities might be able to get on with the job of monitoring vehicle emissions and advising drivers how best to tackle that problem. There is no easy answer, but I hope that the Minister will at least think about the problem with an open mind and see whether there is an answer to it.
The Environment Act 1995 will allow for the introduction, in 1997, of regulations giving local authorities the power to enforce local road closures and diversions if air quality standards are breached in pollution hot spots. However, although a trunk road passing through the centre of Nottingham is likely to be the primary source of traffic pollution in the area, the local authority has no powers over trunk roads, and will only be able to close, or divert traffic away from, surrounding roads. Again, the Minister may wish to look at that power to see whether it can be extended.
What can the Government do further to assist local authorities? First, they must get their own job sorted out, and get their own house in order. The Government have said that they will set national targets for the nine worst pollutants, but as yet the provisions are not in force. Although a small group of local councils are piloting the initiative, the Government have stipulated that 2005 will be the year in which they hope to achieve their air quality objectives. Surely that policy could be reviewed by the Minister.
The problem is certainly getting worse. The Department of Transport has predicted that car use will more than double its 1988 level by 2025. Unfortunately, the Government have no transport policy to speak of.
Indeed, I understand that they want to wind up the Department of Transport, because they do not see it as having any function.
The Government also, sadly, continue to do little to promote transport choice or the shift from the private car to buses, trains, bicycles and walking. If that shift does not take place, there will be a huge increase in the number of traffic jams in my city and in cities throughout the land. The Minister well knows that a car idling in a traffic jam can double its fuel consumption, and can put double the amount of pollution into the atmosphere compared with a vehicle travelling at its best average speed.
I am not putting an anti-car view. On the contrary, we can have more cars, as people do in Germany. In Germany, however, although there is a higher level of car ownership, there is a lower level of car use, because there are adequate public transport alternatives. People have cars, but use them less; that should in many ways be the slogan we adopt in our environmental policy on traffic.
No one pretends that the answers are easy or straightforward, but much can be done at all levels--city, county and national Government. We need policy co-ordination. Professor Richard Madeley of the department of public health at Nottingham university told me that, at the moment, it can cost £2.60 for two people to go to Nottingham city centre by bus, whereas it costs only 70p to park there for two hours.
We need to consider co-ordination and integration, and we need to encourage people, not least by the price mechanism, to use appropriate forms of transport rather than doing what we all do, which is to drag the car into the middle of the city, often with only one person in it, thus holding up the bus which often has 30, 40 or 50 people in it.
Local councils need time to plan the air quality management areas proposed in the Environment Act. So far, they have received no timetable, no funding and no guidance. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why there has been a delay.
People in Nottingham and throughout the country increasingly demand clean, green alternatives to private cars. The Government must now allow local authorities to create some of the transport choices that will lead us towards a greener future. We shall also need to look at the levels of funding for local authorities so that they can perform the job appropriately. It is not necessarily a matter of more funding. The problem could be solved by having stable funding. Ministers in all spending Departments are aware that annual funding for authorities or any organisation causes difficulties for those Ministers who are trying to make serious efforts to tackle key problems.
Nottingham is trying to tackle air pollution and air quality, but it has one hand tied behind its back. The Government should consider a range of additional policies to help tackle air pollution, including encouraging employers to introduce a green commuter plan, as Nottingham has done. The Government should make public transport better, more environmentally friendly and more pleasant to use, not least by increasing the use of buses. That could be facilitated by considering bus re-regulation, which is obviously necessary in a number of our cities because cowboy operators turn up with old
charabancs that belch out black smoke to the detriment of the good public, municipal and private operators. Fuels with lower sulphur content should be used.
The Government should promote changed work patterns to reduce traffic peaks and pollution hot spots. We should make the fullest use of railways and inland and coastal waterways for the transport of goods and to discourage long-haul road transport, when appropriate. We need to develop and implement alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels; introduce priority vehicle schemes in city centres; and fund park-and-ride schemes.
There are many possibilities. Public transport, for example, could use more energy-efficient vehicles. In Nottingham, we could fuel vehicles from electricity generated by burning refuse. Public transport vehicles that operate in a mainly pedestrianised city centre could be fuelled from non-fossil-fuel-generated electricity. That would make a major contribution to air quality in the city centre.
"we"--
the Committee--
"do not believe that a case has been made out for requiring disclosure of the identity of donors; where donations are made from identifiable and legitimate sources known to the party they should be allowed to remain private."
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 30th April, the Speaker shall put the Question on the first Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Blair relating to Education not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon or half-past Eleven o'clock, whichever is the earlier; no further such Motion shall be made after that hour; and the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the expiry of the time for opposed business.--[Mr. Wells.]
2.32 pm
"We are disappointed with the atmosphere that we are breathing in. We would like you to put a stop to all the fumes that are coming from all the cars and factories. Couldn't we use bicycles and buses more often--that will make less fumes and gases so the air will be safer."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |