| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Letwin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great force of his remarks in the light of the fact that many of the statements about human rights specifically refer to slave labour and to excessively low wages?
Mr. Bercow: That is precisely right. Our concept of human rights, and specifically of what constitutes economic rights, is different from that of other member states of the European Union. As I am sure that my hon. Friend has anticipated, that is at the heart of my concern on this point. I challenge the Minister to state categorically that the European Union would not invoke new article F.1 in justification of the application of a mandatory Communitywide minimum wage of a given level to which all member states were obliged to conform. That is the first example.
The second example that I offer the Minister--if he is able to contain his impatience for only a moment, and to exercise what self-restraint he can muster--is a situation
in which the United Kingdom were to decide that it supported the right to the practice of homosexual sex at the age of 18, but declined to support it at the age of 16. If the rest of the European Union opted for a policy of allowing it at the age of 16 and we deviated from that policy, could it not be held that we had breached a fundamental right as espoused by the European Union? What recourse would we have?
Mr. Cash:
Does my hon. Friend accept that the notion of sexual orientation could easily include paedophilia? Does he agree that it was absolutely reprehensible to include a sexual orientation policy as a part of fundamental human rights when we are denied the idea of self-determination as a sovereign nation?
Mr. Bercow:
I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It would be a bizarre situation.
Against that situation, however, I contend--I think that many Conservative Members would agree--that we have no protection if we sign the treaty. The Minister will probably think, "It might not happen; it probably won't happen; and, if it does happen, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have moved me on to some other ministerial post by the time that it does happen." That is not a satisfactory answer to Conservative Members.
Mr. Swayne:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more likely that such a challenge will be mounted in the social sphere? The treaty makes it clear that the principles on which judgment will be given are not in this treaty but are laid down in the social charter. They are laid down not in the Maastricht social provisions, but in the social charter.
Mr. Bercow:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers of the social charter. The social charter has been much ignored in our debates, but it contains provisions that are infinitely more threatening to United Kingdom citizens than anything that is in the social chapter.
I am inviting the Minister to offer some proof that we have protection against those developments. He sits there chattering away to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), but he has nothing to say. He has advanced no argument. He responded to no point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), and he sat in blithe ignorance of the potency of the arguments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. It is breathtaking that the Minister can sit there, preoccupied with nothing other than where he is going when he leaves the House at the end of the evening, so that he is not able to respond to the thrust of the arguments deployed against him.
The reason that we oppose article 1 and the treaty--
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
On the issue of where everyone is going in about one minute, does the hon. Gentleman agree that section 28 of the Mental Health Act 1983 probably applies in his case, and that the sooner two men in white coats come to remove him, the better?
Mr. Bercow:
I hope that I can be forgiven for wondering whether the hon. Gentleman is experiencing the after-effects of an extremely agreeable dinner, but that does not detract from the point--
It being Ten o'clock The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful for you to know that I have absolutely no objection to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) sitting on the Committee on Standards and Privileges, but I feel that the House should have a further opportunity to debate the procedures that that Committee adopts with regard to Members who are charged with some form of misconduct, because previous cases have shown that there is a denial of natural justice. I do not object to the hon. Member for Tatton personally, but I want to promote a debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that that is a point of explanation and argument rather than a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottinghan, North):
Unaccustomed as I am to speaking in the Chamber, as I come from the Whips' Office, I wish to present a petition to the House ahead of tomorrow's debate on whether to ban fox hunting. The petition states:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Pope.]
Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey):
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in an Adjournment debate. The future of Wharfedale general has long been a subject of local debate and concern in the communities it serves. The hospital is highly regarded. Performance indicators prove that it provides quality care, efficiently and effectively, to more than 6,000 in-patients and day-case patients a year, as well as to many out-patients.
A business plan produced by the United Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust to justify the continuation of the hospital listed a number of strengths. They included the loyalty of purchasers, the commitment of staff and the community, the range of services and accessibility, the availability of parking, no or low waiting lists--a crucial issue--a broad range of open-access therapy services, a wide range of purchasers, a strong minor injuries unit, and a potentially valuable site.
About 40 per cent. of the hospital's patients are drawn from the Guiseley, Yeadon, Rawdon and Horsforth communities within my constituency. A similar number come from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). I trust that he will succeed in catching your eye at the appropriate moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One of the hospital's greatest advantages is that it provides such excellent care away from the expensive, high-tech, congested, city-centre-based teaching hospital of Leeds general infirmary. Two years ago, the debate on the future of the hospital appeared to have reached a critical, yet positive, watershed. The United Leeds hospital trust began a consultation process on where a new Wharfedale general might be built. That seemed to imply that the hospital's future was secure.
That sense of security has been backed up in a variety of planning documents in recent years--for example, the trust's own business plan and strategy, and the Leeds review--a major examination of acute health care in the city--and more recently in Leeds health authority's consultation document, "The Future of Health Services in Leeds". Each of those important documents has acknowledged the vital future role of the hospital.
Given all that apparent commitment, why have I insisted on keeping my hon. Friend the Minister from his cocoa? In July 1995, almost two and a half years ago, the trust submitted an outline business plan to the regional office of the national health service executive. It was at that point that the circumstances that gave rise to tonight's debate began to unfold, and then to fold up.
Initially, the issue became a ping-pong game between the NHS executive and the United Leeds hospital trust. Ping--the trust served up its outline business plan in July 1995. Pong--the regional office eventually returned it requiring more information. Ping--the trust went for an outright winner by supplying more information, but--pong--the region lobbed it back. Backwards and forwards it went.
The game was an infuriating spectacle for the local community that is served by the hospital. But worse was to come, for there came a time when there was neither
ping nor pong, but merely a deafening silence. It seemed that the ball had disappeared, and each side seemed to be claiming that the other had it in their pocket.
I do not want to take up valuable time relating all the minutiae of this Byzantine farce. Three short quotes will serve to sum up the impasse that I hope this debate will help to remove. David Hall, the chair of the trust, told me two weeks ago:
As I have tried to show, precious little progress has been made in planning the hospital's long-term future. However, day by day, a great deal is happening, and it is not good. In the past month, a ward has closed. Last week, the trust agreed a package of further cuts that will dramatically affect the hospital. The hospital is like a cherished old friend dying of starvation because his doting hosts cannot decide what to feed him on. Whether the menu is potato or potahto, the planning process is, at best, in a persistent vegetative state. Some might say that, bereft of life, it lies extinct.
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8150/97, on the general principles of Food Law in the European Union, and 8386/97, on Consumer Health and Food Safety; and endorses the Government's intention to support and contribute to the development of an EC food policy which delivers high standards of food safety, fully reflects the needs of consumers and contributes to the development of an effective Single Market.
That this House takes note of the Commission Communications (10427/97) of 1st October 1997 Towards tax co-ordination in the European Union -- a package to tackle harmful tax competition and (COM(97)564) of 5th November 1997 A package to tackle harmful tax competition in the European Union: and supports the Government's position as set out in its Explanatory Memorandum (COM 97(564)) of 17th November 1997.--[Mr. Pope.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.--[Mr. Pope.]
Question agreed to.
That Miss Ann Widdecombe be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Mr. Martin Bell be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Mudie.]
Hon. Members:
Object.
That Siobhain McDonagh be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Paul Goggins be added to the Committee.--[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Hon. Members:
Object.
We the undersigned being constituents of Nottingham North commend the new Labour Government in allowing a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned by legislation. We therefore call upon our local Labour Member of Parliament, Graham Allen, to vote in favour of banning hunting with hounds--
something that I do very gladly. The petition continues:
We are totally opposed to this barbaric sport and demand greater protection for all defenceless wildlife. We believe that Parliament should support Michael Foster MP's Bill to ban hunting with hounds and respectfully request that the House of Commons should take this opportunity to outlaw this horrific sport.
To lie upon the Table.
10.3 pm
"We have done everything humanly possible to meet the requirements of the Regional Office in producing our outline business plan."
Mr. Ron De Witt, the chief executive of Leeds health authority stated during the same discussion:
"The Trust's business plan is one of the best I have ever seen."
However, Dr. Bill Kirkup, director of the region's NHS trusts division told me:
"We definitely see a future for Wharfedale General, but we cannot approve the Trust's Outline Business Plan on the strength of a business case from 1995 updated by a series of addenda."
I am reminded of the much-quoted song from the Fred Astaire musical--Leeds says "potayto", the region says "potahto", Leeds says "tomayto", the region says "tomahto", and so on. The crunch comes in the song's punch line:
"Let's call the whole thing off."
Local people fear that, if this continues, the whole thing will eventually be called off. Their fear is understandable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |