| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 noon
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has the solution in his own hands. The gist of his speech was that Labour policies are unpopular and Tory policies are popular. The remedy is simple--that he meets the Prime Minister and suggests that he holds an early general election, so that we may discover what the public think.
The hon. Gentleman, being a shrewd lawyer, has the sense not to do so. Presumably, one of the reasons why he made a lengthy speech was that he realises with nostalgia that he will not be with us much longer. That is one of the things that will no doubt motivate him in the few months remaining to him.
I want to speak about three aspects of public sector decision making in my constituency. Although I do not expect the present Government to be around for much longer, they can do a great deal of damage in the time that remains. One aspect concerns the railways, one concerns the Post Office and another concerns the health service.
I would have spoken of this with anger some time ago, but this week no one who cares about institutions in Britain feels anything but sadness that the great national asset of our rail network has been sold by the Government. That asset was acquired by a Labour Government after the war, not for reasons of dogma, but because it was obviously in the national interest that a rail network should be planned nationally, and it was ludicrous to try to pretend that one could have competition in a rail network in the way that one can with ordinary consumer goods.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. For at least three generations, my family has made a living working for the railways, and I remember how proud my father was when the railways were taken into public ownership in 1948.
When I think of the money spent on privatisation--£287 million on reorganisation costs within British Rail alone, reducing the network to 100 different individual companies--I think of what might have been done if only a fraction of that money had been spent on services locally, regionally and nationally. Why, four years ago, did British Rail remove the InterCity network link between Telford and London? Why could it not have spent a fraction of the costs of privatisation on electrifying the line from Wolverhampton through to Shrewsbury?
One would suppose that decision making in the rail network was fairly simple, but let me take an example of the lunacy of what has happened to the rail network. For some months, I have been trying to find out about the improvement of access for people with disabilities to Wellington railway station. I still have not discovered who is responsible for ensuring that disabled people have proper access to a specific railway station. Is it Railtrack? Is it the train operating company? Is it the franchising director? Is it the Government? Who is it? The answer is that we have returned almost to the bad old pre-grouping days--almost pre-1923, not even pre-1948--when everyone was in competition and no one was clearly responsible for crucial services such as access for disabled people.
The Government have taken another bad decision related to the railways. Why do a Government who claim that they want to transfer freight from road to rail act contrary to that claim in the one area where they have power to take decisions--defence transport? The Ministry of Defence has been closing rail links to defence depots at an alarming rate of knots, including that to Donnington depot in my constituency. That Government Department is obviously taking decisions to transfer freight from rail to road, because it is closing the rail links, at a time when the Secretary of State for Transport is saying that it is crucial to move more freight on to the railways.
I have found those aspects of rail decision making bewildering, and I have no confidence that the newly privatised rail network will make any development in those crucial areas.
I now move on to my second point. Although I may be being unfair, because the decision has not yet been made, for some months it has been mooted that Post Office
Counters Ltd. wants to close Wellington post office. As one would expect, that has met massive opposition from Wellington town council, from Wrekin district council, from myself and from my colleague and friend Peter Bradley--the prospective Labour parliamentary candidate for the neighbouring new Wrekin constituency. Despite the opposition, all the signs are that Post Office Counters will go ahead and close the post office.
What does that tell us about whether the postal service should exist in the public interest to serve the public good or be operated on the basis of private interest and private gain? I know which answer my constituents give to that question--they have given it loud and clear, but I fear that Post Office Counters will not be listening.
Finally, I wish to mention the fact that, despite a massive public campaign to establish a consultant maternity unit at the Princess Royal hospital in my constituency, the Shropshire health authority has failed to acknowledge the strength of the case and the fact that the structure and distribution of the population of Shropshire have changed. The new town of Telford, which I am proud to represent, has been growing and expanding, and needs a development in key medical areas--and a consultant maternity unit is one of the most important I can think of. I have no confidence that the health authority is logically considering the needs of the whole county, and especially not those resulting from the growth of Telford.
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth):
Briefly, I endorse the points that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) just made. I also mention the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right to seek the amendment of the Bill. It is unjust and flawed, and can be costly and brutal. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that the Bill should be amended. The only thing that prevents it from happening is the Government's unwillingness to confess that they made a serious blunder.
I shall briefly mention two matters. The first concerns national health service pensions. Constituency experience has led me to believe that there is a continuing injustice. A person retiring from the national health service early on health grounds may expect to receive a pension, but that person must prove that there is no prospect of recovery. In pursuing a specific case, I learned from the National Health Service Pensions Agency that that was the requirement, but at least the agency then spelled out that the employer must not lead the employee to expect that the pension will follow.
I will not mention names, because I have not consulted my constituent--nor is it appropriate yet. In my constituent's case, the trust that employed her said that it had not led her to believe that she would receive a pension, but she was able to give me a document showing the estimate of the pension that she would receive if she
accepted termination of employment, as she did. That is an injustice. I suspect that it has happened before, and it needs to be examined.
I refer also to hedgerows, which I have long sought to protect. Hon. Members with an interest in this matter were persuaded not to pursue private Members' initiatives, because the Government took power to introduce regulations to protect hedgerows in 1994. However, it is now 1996, and patience is running out.
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr):
This morning there have been only 12 Back-Bench speeches, which is somewhat fewer than normal. A number of themes have emerged in the speeches of hon. Members, including beef and the siting of the millennium exhibition--four or five hon. Members referred to these issues.
I was not present in the House yesterday during the statement on BSE, but I read Hansard this morning. We have a major catastrophe on our hands, as I am sure the Leader of the House is aware. Farmers have been damaged, farm supplies have been damaged, the value of farm land has been damaged, the road haulage industry has been damaged, auctioneers have been damaged, meat manufacturers have been damaged, butchers have been damaged, consumers have been damaged, and taxpayers will be damaged. All because of what?
On 20 March, two Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and made statements on the same issue. Clearly, the Government did not undertake an analysis of the risk of the statements. The Ministers told us that people were dying, perhaps as a result of the transfer of BSE from cattle. What did they expect the reaction to be? The Government did not consult our European partners or the farm industry before the statements were made.
The Government's policy on BSE is unclear. Following the initial statements, we were told that no cull was planned, then we were told that a cull was planned, then the number of cattle to be culled was planned, then the age of the cattle to be culled was in dispute, and now we have learnt that67 per cent. of the known BSE cases in cattle were born after the feed ban came into force. There has been confusion from the day that the two Ministers made their statements. There have been continual statements, and a lack of clarity in the Government's policy.
The Government have flatly refused to talk about the fact that British beef was banned by the United States in 1987-88--the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was interviewed on the "Today" programme this morning, is an exception. A change in the European ban will not alter the American ban. We have not heard a succession of Ministers claiming that the Americans are being unfair.
This morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the American ban at least twice. He is quite right--he knows the game plan. It is to use this issue--which is of the Government's making--to turn the country to its side
by being anti-European. Hon. Members should forget the beef issue--it just happened to come along. It will not work. The farmers do not agree with the Government's current policy.
This major problem is affecting a whole range of people in this country. It may be argued that not all Members of Parliament represent farmers. However, there is a connection to the beef industry in all constituencies--there are consumers, taxpayers and suppliers. The factories of Birmingham are still manufacturing goods and equipment used by farmers. The road haulage industry is also being affected. We have a major catastrophe on our hands, because no one in the Government analysed the potential risk and consequences of the two statements.
The millennium exhibition was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and by the hon. Members for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). I will have to tread delicately, but I think that the result was 3:1 in favour of the millennium exhibition being in London. I shall try to redress that imbalance slightly. Without wishing to abuse my position at the Dispatch Box, I believe that the millennium exhibition should be held in the midlands.
The millennium exhibition is moving towards being the major 1990s example of a breakdown in the accepted standards of conduct of public administration in this country. Massive public funds are involved--at least£200 million--from the lottery fund via the Millennium Commission. I say to London Members--regardless of their political persuasion--that, if it was desired to have a major exhibition in the capital city, why was the issue ever raised and why were invitations ever issued to any site in the country to put in a bid to launch the exhibition?
There were 61 applications for 57 sites, which were reduced to two in London, one in Derby and one in Birmingham. At that point, it could have been said that the exhibition would be held in the capital, but that was not said. Last December, when the two full applications were received--one for Greenwich and one for the national exhibition centre--the rigging of the system started. Imagination, which put in the bid for the NEC site, did not submit a bid for the Greenwich site to start with. It was later asked to do so, because it was clear that its plans were superior.
The real problem arose on 28 February, when the Secretary of State for National Heritage said that the exhibition would go to Greenwich, subject to the money being put together by Sir Peter Levene's team by May. It is now May--there is no money, and there is no scheme. We are running out of time. London is clogged and the Greenwich site is a shambles--it is unclean and unhealthy. The City of London has shunned the issue, business has shunned the issue and leading entrepreneurs have shunned the issue--only the spiv element of British society is left. Do we want the spiv element to fund this massive exhibition? Of course not.
The London-based Government and the London-based Millennium Commission are biased against any initiatives from the regions and provinces, to the extent that leaks have emerged to the effect that, if the exhibition is not held in London, it will not be held at all. The country should have a millennium exhibition. The NEC management has shown commendable professional skill, and, even though there is a prima facie case for a judicial
review, it has not sought one. The NEC remains available to carry the exhibition for the whole of the country, as it is quite clear that it will not be a success at Greenwich.
I ask the Leader of the House to comment on the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about haemophiliacs. I cannot go into the detail, but hon. Members know that there is a major unfairness--to put it politely--in relation to people suffering from hepatitis C and people suffering from HIV as a result of contaminated blood products from the national health service.
They should be treated the same. The House should decide this issue, not the Government. I believe that, if this issue were put to a free vote, they would be treated the same. It is unfair. It is a moral issue. There would not be any arguments about this across the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred to a 13-year-old British citizen who is incarcerated by secret police in a Commonwealth country--albeit one that has been suspended for the time being, but I presume that it wants to get back into the Commonwealth's good books. Foreign Office Ministers are not jumping up and down about this issue. I am not knocking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because, when I deal with cases, the consular officials in London do a good job.
Pressure must be exerted on the Nigerian Government to ensure that the 13-year-old British-born British citizen returns home as quickly as possible, goes back to school and is with his family. I hope that the BBC World Service will make use of my hon. Friend's speech to shame the Nigerians into doing what any civilised Government would do to redress something that should never have happened.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |