| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Jerry Wiggin: On the question of transport and third parties, I understand that it is envisaged that the third party will collect the pistols from point A to carry them to point B. We will have a ludicrous situation because a vehicle containing 50 or 60 such items will be more vulnerable than if licensed shooters were allowed to look after their own pistols.
10.30 pm
Miss Widdecombe: I understand that point and that is the sort of detail that will be discussed in Committee.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is important.
Miss Widdecombe: Yes, it is an important detail. There is much detail in the Bill, to which due attention will be paid during its various stages.
I greatly admire the persistence of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He should not have thought for one moment that I was not paying him attention, because I was faithfully writing down every question he asked. It is impossible to put a figure on compensation at present, for the simple reason that the figure that is estimated as being likely to be paid will depend on what we will compensate for. The position that we have taken is that we must compensate for any gun that is banned, whether it be held legally by an individual or by gun dealers as part of stocks.
We will have to compensate at the market value on the day before the Home Secretary's statement. It is clear that if guns are part of collections, as I have said previously, that will have some effect on the market value of the individual guns concerned. To get to the horrendous figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted, one would have to do a lot more than compensate for banned guns, and that is where the problem arises. When people say that we must compensate for all loss, not just for the guns but for all associated accessories--whether interchangeable with other guns or not--and loss of business, then the figures for compensation are larger. When the precise proposals are put in Committee, it will be possible to give figures, although they will not be precise because this is not an exact science.
Mr. Dalyell:
I thank the Minister for the courtesy and, indeed, candour of her answer, but I must ask why the Government will pay compensation for stocks. If the
18 Nov 1996 : Column 807
Miss Widdecombe:
No, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. We are talking only about only banned guns. We are not talking about stocks of guns that gun dealers may hold in which it will still be legal to trade. Compensation will be paid specifically for banned guns, and we made that clear earlier. There is nothing unusual about my candour, as the hon. Gentleman called it.
I turn now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who again said tonight that we were legislating in haste. During earlier stages of the Bill, I tried to repel suggestion after suggestion from other Opposition Members that we had been too slow. We had to give careful consideration to the measures so that we introduced balanced and coherent legislation. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would have happened had the weapon used been a sawn-off shotgun. Sawn-off shotguns are already illegal. He also made his own case when he pointed out that shotguns have a use, outside sport and leisure, for control in the countryside. That is why handguns that have direct uses--those used by vets, for example--have been exempted from our provisions in the same spirit.
You have been very patient, Mr. Morris, and I am aware that I too have probably trespassed on issues that I should not have commented on directly, but they have been raised in the debate.
Mr. Leigh:
Before my hon. Friend finishes, will she deal briefly with my important point about the shooting community? Central Government, local government and the police authorities will have considerable latitude in how they implement the new regulations on the safety of gun clubs. Will she make it clear on behalf of the Government that their view is that the new law should be implemented in such a way that the maximum number of clubs are kept open so that people can pursue the sport of .22 calibre shooting?
Miss Widdecombe:
We will specify the conditions under which we require such guns to be kept and the security measures to be taken, and we will expect those to be enforced. We are not aiming to shut clubs or to keep clubs open. We are aiming to get the right conditions under which clubs may operate and to have them enforced. I support the clause, and I am grateful for the Opposition's support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.--[Mr.Coe]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
18 Nov 1996 : Column 808
Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central):
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that the city of Newcastle upon Tyne is home to two universities and is one of the country's greatest university cities. I was handed this petition at a campus meeting at which the unions and staff representatives were discussing the result of their ballot for a day of action tomorrow. A remarkable young lady called Jenny Toomey, a science student at the university, spontaneously organised the petition with a group of friends.
The petition, from the students of the university of Newcastle upon Tyne, declares:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Coe.]
Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire):
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for being here to reply to my plea. The subject is the appeals procedure relating to the closure of the Fransware nursing home, and it focuses on the actions of Hampshire county council social services department and of the local government ombudsman, who could not bring himself to investigate the county council's actions.
The appeal concerns a Mrs. Francis--a much respected member of Andover's community, who ran a rest or nursing home and who, to her total astonishment and that of the local community who knew her, to the astonishment of the county council's local area social services team and to the astonishment and disbelief of residents in her home and their relatives, was arrested at 8.45 am one morning and taken to Andover police station on a complaint that she had ill-treated her residents. She was released at 12.50 pm.
Immediately after her release, she was informed that Hampshire county council social services department, at county level, was making an immediate application to the magistrates to have the home closed on the ground of Mrs. Francis's physical and mental cruelty to patients. With only one hour and 10 minutes, Mrs. Francis found a local solicitor and briefed him for a 2 pm hearing in the magistrates court. The magistrates heard the case and, rightly, threw it out.
I must turn the clock back three months to January 1992, when Mrs. Francis took in a Mr. and Mrs. Earl--that is not their name, but I want to protect their family. Mr. Earl was known as a difficult and, some might say, plain cantankerous, old man. After some weeks, Mrs. Francis found that he disrupted the home so badly, upsetting other residents, that she gave him a month's notice. It should be noted that Mr. Earl did not want to leave. Indeed, he became very angry and objected strongly. On the evening before his departure, he told Mrs. Francis, "I'll get you for this."
I recognise that any county social services department would be in a quandary if it received notification from the police or any other source that patients, for whom it had a responsibility as the licensing authority, were allegedly being ill-treated. There have been too many cases in other parts of the country in which failure to act has rightly been criticised. I can understand Hampshire county council considering whether to withdraw the licence, but for goodness' sake, before taking such a drastic step, why did the council not inquire about the home from those who were really in the know?
For example, why did the council not say to the proprietor, "These charges have been made. What is it all about?" Why did the council not ask the relatives who were always popping in and out to see patients, or even ask the local office, which would have told them,
18 Nov 1996 : Column 810
I shall quote one of many similar letters. It was sent by Mrs. Byrne, who writes:
One of the charges was that Mrs. Francis had ill-treated one of the patients--a sprightly old lady, who was eager to give evidence that, far from treating her roughly as had been charged, Mrs. Francis had treated her "gently". The county might have paused when it noted that, following its own official inspections in 1989, 1990 and 1991, letters were sent to Mrs. Francis that were generally complimentary. The social services department took the matter to its social services sub-committee.
Mr. J. R. French, a well-respected local solicitor retained by Mrs. Francis, said:
First, the council said:
18 Nov 1996 : Column 811
Secondly, Mrs. Francis was told:
Mrs. Francis appealed to the rest homes tribunal and the case was heard in March a year later. The first hearing took five days. The county council presented its case, and the witnesses were cross-examined by the council and by Mrs. Francis's solicitor. The five days did not give time for Mrs. Francis's case to be put at all. Accordingly, the tribunal adjourned until July. By then, Mrs. Francis was bust. The county had by its ill-considered actions destroyed her business, and negative equity in the premises polished it off.
The local government ombudsman wrote:
Finally, this August I had a letter from Mr. Stephen Adam of Hampshire county council that took broadly the same line as had Mr. Hancock. It stated:
18 Nov 1996 : Column 812
I raised the question of a reference so that Mrs. Francis could get other employment. The letter continued:
10.35 pm
that the current level of funding to higher education institutions has led to larger class sizes, diminished tutorial provision, a reduction in practical work, and demotivation of staff. This has seriously compromised the quality of education and the standard of the university degree. In addition, the removal of student support through the loss of grant provision and entitlement to benefits has deterred many people from lower income families from undertaking courses in higher education. This is unjust, divisive and a waste of national resource. Britain cannot afford to ignore the long term consequences of under-investment in its education system.
The petition then extends to the House the traditional and historic courtesies of citizens exerting their right to petition.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to take account of the difficulties faced by students and by higher education institutions; to commit the Government to ensuring that British universities return to the high standards for which they were previously renowned; and to ensure that the funding councils are made open to public scrutiny, and that governing bodies of higher educational establishments be made accountable.
10.38 pm
"Whatever time of the day you went into Fransware, the atmosphere was always friendly and relaxed"?
This is a home where the local county social services department found
"relatives, social workers, district nurses and GPs were in and out all day long. If patients were ill treated surely someone would have noticed."
Having started on the road to closing the Fransware nursing home, however, there was no stopping the county council juggernaut. Aspects of the case would have made any reasonable person pause and think again. The relatives of nine out of the 10 residents wrote to condemn the county council's proposed action. The 10th resident had no relatives, but a local solicitor acted for her. On the closure of the home, he had so much confidence in Mrs. Francis that he asked her to look after his ward personally and privately.
"My mother has been a resident in the home for about three years. She is senile, almost blind and totally incapable of looking after herself. My father lives in Andover and we both visit the home frequently. Never have we had cause to complain or in the slightest way to suspect that the treatment my mother is having is anything other than suitable, correct and caring. She is always clean and content and clearly well fed . . . We visited frequently, often when not expected and never found anything in the slightest untoward."
In spite of what one might have thought, the county council proceeded.
"it is almost a foregone conclusion that the Council will succeed in its application before its own Social Services Sub-Committee . . . It is difficult to see what point there is in the Sub-Committee hearing unless the Council Director of Social Services is manifestly acting in bad faith (although in any event he will not be open to cross-examination)."
Interestingly, he continued:
"letters I have written to employees of the Department have been responded to by the Director, inviting me to make any contact with employees through him."
That sounds like an easy, unbiased way of getting information, does it not? He went on:
"The implication is that he would not consent to their involving themselves in Mrs. Francis' 'defence'."
The county sub-committee duly confirmed the case of the county social services. There are certain aspects worth noting. On 15 October 1992, the council made a decision against Mrs. Francis. I shall mention three of the grounds.
"You have on occasions physically assaulted residents."
I can tell the House about that case. Mr. and Mrs. Earl were due to go to bed one evening, and the nurse who went to see them to bed came down to fetch Mrs. Francis, because a fight was in progress. Mrs. Francis went up and found that not only were the two having fisticuffs but Mrs. Earl was fouling her underwear. In that circumstance, Mrs. Francis had to do something physical to separate the contestants. It was alleged--I would not
"You have on occasions forced a resident to drink against her will."
She had been advised by the doctor that that resident should increase her consumption of liquids. Thirdly, she was told:
"You have subjected residents to a toileting routine that failed to give consideration to their needs, including their need for dignity, their wishes and feelings."
When incontinent old people do not go to the loo because they have dementia and cannot remember, what can one do other than have a routine to trot them through at the right time so that they are protected from wetting their underwear? Of course such things have to happen in the real world of people who are in advanced stages of old age and, in many cases, dementia.
"Section 26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1974 prevents the Local Government Ombudsman from investigating any matter for which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal to a Tribunal, except if the Local Government Ombudsman is satisfied that it is not reasonable to expect the person to resort to it. In this case Mrs Francis resorted to her right of appeal to the Tribunal. I considered carefully your contention that Mrs Francis could not afford to complete the appeal and therefore it would be open me to investigate her complaint.
That letter is from the local government ombudsman, over the signature of Mr. J. R. White, and dated April 1996. I appealed to the county council to give a fair hearing, but I did not get very far. The leader of the county council, Councillor Hancock, simply reasserted what had been said by the chief executive.
I am of the view that it would be wholly inappropriate to exercise discretion and pursue this case. That is because, even if I were to make enquiries, I would have no powers whatsoever to challenge the decision made by Hampshire County Council to de-register Mrs Francis. That power lies only with a Tribunal or the Courts. I therefore confirm that I see no grounds to change my predecessor's opinion that this complaint should not be pursued further."
"I appreciate your view that she"--
Mrs. Francis--
"had a full defence but could not afford to continue to be legally represented and thus had to withdraw; whilst we can never know whether this would have affected the ultimate outcome, the fact in law is that her withdrawal concluded the tribunal's proceedings and that by choosing"--
choosing is the word that was used; it made me choke--
"not to continue her appeal she had accepted that the case made against her had succeeded."
The poor woman has not had the opportunity to put one word of her case to the tribunal, because she ran out of funds as a result of the actions of the county council in bringing about her bankruptcy.
"In the event of any request being made to the Social Services Department for a reference . . . We would be bound to take the above circumstances into account."
In other words, having destroyed her business, Hampshire county council is pursuing its vendetta to the point of destroying her ability to earn a living by refusing her a reference.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |