| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Austin Mitchell: The third method that the hon. Lady did not outline is to up the level at which people can invest. Some societies are demanding minimum investments of £1,000. Why is it not possible to put an overall rule in the Bill that people can participate, decide and vote on such issues only on the condition of two years' membership?
Mrs. Knight: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman briefly, as he will be aware that time is ticking away rather quickly. It is quite correct that, when societies have been faced with speculation, some have increased the limit that an individual has to subscribe in order to become a member. They have then dropped the limit back down. They have also restricted membership in some instances to a very localised basis, but then relieved those restrictions. That is the normal operation of the marketplace. I do not want to interfere in their business practices.
Mr. Butterfill: How can a mutual society protect itself--whatever it does--from a hostile bid via shares?
Mrs. Knight: If my hon. Friend will bear with me a moment, I shall come to that point. At this point, I want to answer his earlier questions relating to five-year protection, which was raised by several hon. Members.
A converting society does not automatically lose its five-year protection. It loses such protection only if it takes certain specific steps. Thus, if it feels that it requires time to stabilise itself in its new form as a public limited company, it is protected for up to five years. If, however, it feels that it is strong enough and wants to go on the acquisition trail of another authorised financial institution, it is only fair on it, and indeed other participants in the marketplace, that it should lose its protection. The question relates not only to other mutual societies but to insurers and banks. The converting societies are big organisations. The Halifax will be the fourth largest bank in this country. Indeed, the Alliance and Leicester and the Woolwich would both be larger than the Royal Bank of Scotland and Guardian Royal Exchange, a well-known insurance company.
The key proposals in the Bill will allow societies to develop their financial services in the way they want while staying mutual. There will be more competition in the high street, which means better rates for savers and borrowers. Building societies will still have the unique close relationship with home owners and local people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
Committee tomorrow.
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
Question agreed to.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
Madam Speaker:
With the leave of the House, I shall take motions Nos. 6 to 9 together.
Motions made, and Questions put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Resolved,
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
I beg leave to present a petition which has been sent to me by some of my constituents. The petition is from the community practitioners and health visitors associations of Huntingdon and Cambridgeshire and residents of the area. The petition has more than 3,000 signatures, collected in a short time, and it declares:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Ottaway.]
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich):
Those hon. Members who have left the Chamber are, almost without exception, on their way to a warm house and--usually--to their own beds. Those of us who have that privilege do not always understand the completely different lives led by the street children of the world.
Those children have been abandoned or have run away, and are at risk of suffering the most appalling individual disasters. They are always at risk of theft or exploitation, both sexual and commercial, and many of them live in conditions that we in this so-called compassionate country would not accept for animals. It is therefore important that countries such as our own, which have access to large sums of money and influence in international organisations, should use both to affect the lives of children.
It is a sad fact that it took a long time, even in the House, for people to accept that women are an important focus for overseas development aid. It is even more depressing that we are in the same situation with regard to children. Children are not at the forefront of our decision-making processes. We sit here and talk in detail about legislation that affects our constituents, but we sometimes forget that we have an impact on the lives of children across the world.
I am privileged to represent a constituency in which the railway was an important industry. A railway town was created from a green-field site, and the men and women who work in the railway industry have some important traits. They care desperately about the railway system, and they are committed to providing a service. They also understand the need to care for others. It is therefore not an accident that my constituency is home to a charity called the Railway Children.
The project grew from the response from various railwaymen and women--particularly a remarkable man called David Maidment, who spent his working life with British Rail working on safety. In his capacity as a qualified engineer, he travelled the world and saw to his considerable dismay children living on railway stations. Some were sleeping on luggage carts or in corners, while some were begging, stealing and doing anything they could to stay alive. Some of these children were as young as five.
It is only when one translates that into one's own life that one understands. I am a happy, if poor, grandmother of 10--some of whom are quite tiny. I have only to think of those children being abandoned by their parents and being left to the vagaries of this bitterly cruel world to realise the circumstances in which those railway children live. David Maidment came to the House of Commons to talk to me about helping to create a charity to provide support for those children. He was particularly concerned with the children of India, as he had seen large numbers of them in Calcutta and elsewhere.
As soon as Mr. Maidment began to talk to other railwaymen and women, he realised that they too were concerned about the problem. They brought to the matter not only a strong commitment to human rights, but
compassion and a desire to change those intolerable circumstances. So the Railway Children was born as a useful and important charity. We are still aiming to have an exhibition in the House of Commons, showing some of the more poignant pictures taken by a photographer who had travelled throughout India to see those children. We have not yet come up in the ballot, but I am hopeful that we shall in the future. The Railway Children then grew and became part of a greater consortium of charities concerned with the children of the streets.
One reads case histories of children on Mexican or Indian stations, or children abducted in time of war in Africa and incorporated into an army they neither understand nor wish to be a part of and forced to follow a large number of armed men and women to survive. No matter what kind of circumstances those children live in, every one of them needs help urgently--they need it today and tonight. Therefore, why do the Government tell us that there are a number of important measures, but never give us the specifics?
I feel that it would be useful for the House to know some of the statistics. Obviously, some are the result of informed guesswork because, after all, no one knows how many children are in these situations. In Lima, the capital of Peru, there are 850 children living on stations, and possibly 2,000 nationwide. In Mexico City, the figure is 11,000 children. In Guatemala, it is 5,200. In Romania, Albania and Bulgaria, it is 12,000. In Manila, there are 50,000 children living in stations and perhaps 75,000 living on the streets, often working in slave conditions. There are 20,000 such children in Bombay, 10,000 in Dhaka and more than 5,000 in Khartoum. These are appalling figures, demonstrating world misery and unhappiness that we should be doing something about.
I want to ask the Government a simple set of questions. First, can they tell me how many special projects they can identify within their vote are targeted towards children? I would like to call such a programme "Children First". Any number of marvellous social service terms could be used, but what projects can the Minister tell us about that are directed specifically at children and make sure that children receive the money?
How many NGOs, when they approach the FCO or the ODA, are given special help? How much support do bodies that help children receive? How much of our money, outside the direct support that we give via the European Community, goes into child-based subjects? How often does this country demand transparent child-based priorities in these forums? We want action this year, not next year or the year after. We want to tell those carrying out the good work with tiny amounts of support that we share their sense of urgency and want to do something about the problem.
The Minister may say, of course, that the Department has been involved. There seems to have been an unfortunate incident when one of his colleagues gave the House the impression that the Government had come to the conclusion that there should be special child-based projects and that they were already working on them. I will not go into detail, save to say that a letter from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) offered a long explanation, as follows:
The Minister could do several things this evening. He could come to the Box and say that he will designate within the FCO and the ODA certain desk officers with responsibility, in particular regions, for child-based projects. That might include Africa and Asia, where the enormous growth in numbers of these children is taking place. It could also include other parts of the world that desperately need help. The Minister could say that he has set priorities and targets for those officers, and that he will ask them at the end of the year to report to him.
Norway decided that it was not doing enough; the Government initiated an assessment; after five years they looked at what had been done and at what needed changing. Why cannot we do the same? We are quite capable of it, and we should be prepared to do it.
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[Mrs. Angela Knight.]
Question agreed to.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Building Societies Bill, it is expedient to authorise--
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under the Building Societies Act 1986; and
(b) the payment of any amounts into the Consolidated Fund.--[Mr. Knapman.]
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise--(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other act; and (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable into the Consolidated Fund under any other Act.--[Mr. Knapman.]
Question agreed to.
That the Special Grant Report (No. 24): Special Grant for Asylum Seekers' Accommodation (HC 257), which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.
10 Mar 1997 : Column 114
That the draft Driving Standards Agency Trading Fund Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft The Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Trading Fund Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th February, be approved.
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste Depositing) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.--[Mr. Knapman.]
Questions agreed to.
That this House takes note of Official Journal No. C340 of 12th November 1996, the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1995, together with the institutions' replies, and Official Journal No. C395 of 31st December 1996, the Court of Auditors Statements of Assurance concerning activities financed from the general budget for the financial year 1995 and of the sixth and seventh European Development Funds for 1995, together with the associated special reports and the institutions' replies; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to improve financial management and control within the European Community.--[Mr. Knapman.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Medicines Control Agency Trading Fund (Variation) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th February, be approved.--[Mr. Knapman.]
Question agreed to.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Waste Prevention Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided.--[Mr. Knapman.]
10 Mar 1997 : Column 115
9.59 pm
That the proposals of the Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority to reduce the budget for health visitors and school nurses by £300,000 in 1997-98 are deplorable and will result in a marked deterioration in the standard of services that could be offered by health visitors and school nurses, frustrating their ability to fulfil their responsibilities to deliver primary preventive care and health promotion throughout the community.
To lie upon the Table.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health to review the proposals of Cambridge and Huntingdon health authority to reduce its expenditure on health visitors and school nurses by £300,000 for 1997-98 and to take any necessary steps to ensure that the provision of primary preventive care and health promotion in Huntingdon and Cambridgeshire remains at least at current levels.
And the Petitioners remain etc.
10 pm
"You asked whether the Oral answer, as recorded in Hansard of 27 February 1995, reproduced the advice of officials or whether it was a freelance offer by the then Minister . . . It was neither."
10 Mar 1997 : Column 118
The Minister
the Minister
"made a mistake when he said that ODA was providing financial support over a five year period to the Consortium. In answering a question on ODA help to street children in Kenya,"
"inadvertently confused support to the Consortium with support of a Joint Funding Scheme project which had been approved for a five year cycle. I agree entirely that this was a most unfortunate error."
It most certainly was--most unfortunate for the children who could immediately gain from the support of the child consortium if the Minister were prepared to accept that that should be one of his priorities.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |