| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Does the Minister recall that in a debate last week I said that some abattoirs, including one in my constituency owned by Ben Elliott, were on the original list but were then, for some
mysterious reason, taken off it? The only thing that had happened in the meantime was that somebody from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had asked, "Are you a member of the federation?" I got the clear impression that Mr. Ben Elliott, not being a member of the federation, or part of some kind of freemasonry--
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): A closed shop.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, a closed shop. Ben Elliott was being penalised for not being a member. Representations have been made over the weekend. Ben Elliott can slaughter about 200 cows a day, and many farmers in the area, despite the fact that they do not agree with the cull, have to get rid of their animals, so can I have an assurance that he will be back on the list so that he can help to deal with the problem?
Mr. Hogg: I believe that that is the first time that I have ever heard the hon. Gentleman refer to a closed shop in a somewhat disparaging manner. I regard that as progress.
The problem is that we must slaughter at the maximum capacity, and that means linking abattoirs to renderers. It also means that we must not have too many abattoirs at the outset, because if we did we should not be making the most effective use of the rendering capacity. For that reason, the original number of abattoirs was reduced to 20 or 21. We have it in mind substantially to increase that figure, to about 40--next week, I think. I do not know whether the new list will include the abattoir that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton(Mrs. Browning), is considering that point, because the hon. Gentleman raised it with her in last Thursday's debate.
Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth):
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is apparently confusion in some abattoirs? One in my constituency, which is on his list, is not slaughtering because the intervention board will not provide it with the necessary information. Despite having made and sent 20 or30 telephone calls and faxes, the abattoir has had only one reply in six weeks.
Secondly, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is now impossible to send barren cows to slaughter in some parts of the country? From a humane point of view it is distressing that because of bottlenecks, some injured animals cannot be slaughtered. Will he give that situation some thought?
Mr. Hogg:
We have made provision for casualties, including injured cattle, although I am afraid that I cannot comment on the particular constituency case that my hon. Friend identified. I suggest that he raises it with the Minister of State, who has day-to-day charge of such matters in the Ministry.
The real problem is that we cannot give approval to every abattoir on the original list, because that would make for inefficient use of the rendering capacity. If we went down that road we would not be able to achieve the maximum throughput that I believe is the desired objective of all right hon. and hon. Members.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax):
On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you examine carefully the reply to the last question answered by the Secretary of State for Social Security during Social Security questions? Having spent the weekend with NATO listening to the Secretary-General and Carl Bildt talking about the tragedy of Bosnia, and the great part that ethnic cleansing and racism played in that terrible civil war, I believe that you will agree that racism such as we heard in that answer today has no part in the House or in our great democracy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
I am sure that if Madam Speaker had heard anything that was out of order she would immediately have addressed the matter. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's point is brought to her attention.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)
rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Is it a new point of order?
Mr. MacShane:
On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, as one of the distinguished sportsmen in the House, you will have been outraged by today's report in the Daily Mirror about the treatment of Sir Alf Ramsey, who has not been invited to the England v. Switzerland game that will open the European championships--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's compliment; indeed, I played tennis this morning. Leaving that aside, I do not think that football managership has anything to do with Madam Speaker.
Mr. Paul Flynn, supported by Mr. Nick Ainger,Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Diane Abbott and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, presented a Bill to impose national spending limits on political parties at parliamentary general elections: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
5.3 pm
5.4 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the power of the relevant court to award costs in respect of a decision by licensing justices to grant a justices' licence, in cases where the unsuccessful objector is a properly constituted residents association.
I preface my remarks by saying that although the horrifying story that I am about to tell happened in Harrow, it could have happened anywhere--and that as a result of what happened in Harrow, it could now happen in anyone's constituency.
The background to the problem is the purchase of a British Rail sports ground at Headstone lane, in my constituency, by an organisation now known as Broadfield sports and social club. That is a cosy-sounding name that suggests people who want to do things for the local community and for people who play sport. But that is not the view of the local community, and it is not mine either.
We must take into account the fact that the organisation consists of people who operate under assumed names, and who disguised their sources of finance and concealed their objectives, as well as threatening local residents. They are an unsavoury bunch, and in my judgment, although regrettably not in the judgment of the Harrow licensing magistrates, they are unsuitable people to be running a club. Residents had every reason to question the application for a local licence. Local people were worried, and continue to be worried. I remind the House that the applicants lied about their ownership and obscured their intentions.
In the Harrow magistrates court a retired man, Frank Hayward, represented the Headstone residents association--a respected local residents association which I believe is the oldest in the borough--and two other families also represented local feeling. The applicants were represented by an array of expensive advisers, including a barrister. Of course, they were entitled to be so represented.
The licence was granted. I do not agree with that decision, but that was the judgment. Of course, the magistrates are entitled to make a judgment on the issues as they see them. The magistrates accepted the fact that the residents had put forward a bona fide case, yet the residents finished up with a bill totalling £1,000 in costs. The applicants wanted £5,000 in costs, and £500 was awarded against Mr. Hayward, £250 againstMr. Warburton and £250 against Mr. Way.
When I have spoken to magistrates from other areas no one has been able to recall another case in which that has happened. Indeed, the other magistrates to whom I spoke
were stunned that such a thing should have happened.In my judgment, the ramifications are serious. Because of what I regard as an irresponsible act on the part of Harrow magistrates, no residents association can now risk opposing a licence application. They have made this a high-risk activity.
Local residents received what I regard as threatening letters the night before the hearing from the Broadfield sports and social club, which said that the club would be applying for costs. I met a delegation from all the residents associations in Harrow. They want the matter to be sorted out, and they also want people in other parts of the country to know what a serious position they may be put in.
My Bill aims to protect community representatives when speaking for local people. It will remove the right of courts to levy costs against those representatives, and require courts to keep a list of residents associations that are properly constituted. That is not a big imposition. Councils do this already, as I know from my experience on a council. We do not want to protect a bunch of cronies or a few cranks who get together to oppose a proper licence application, but properly constituted residents associations who represent local people should be protected. Residents associations have a right to represent people, and people in turn have a right to have their views put for them against applicants, however expensively represented they may be, who may threaten local people.
The Bill is simple and direct, and it will not be a burden on legitimate licensees or anyone else in the legitimate trade, including the brewers. But it will give people in every community the right to be heard. I believe that they demand and need that right. The actions of Harrow magistrates court show that something must be done to protect people who exercise their rights.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |