| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Page: We are all seekers after the truth in this matter, but is it not a fact that, when a large company supplies a small company, more often than not a direct debit service is involved so that there is immediate payment and there are no credit terms whatsoever? There is a complete imbalance, which the Bill fails to address.
Mrs. Roche: I agree that there is an imbalance, but the Bill seeks to correct that balance by implying that term into statute, giving small businesses a remedy whereby they can claim interest if--I stress, if--they wish to do so.
I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for his remarks and for the role that he has played. He provided a good riposte to the remarks by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I welcome his support for the Bill.
This has been short but interesting debate. The Bill is vital to small businesses, which are the economic backbone of this country. I pay tribute to the contribution that they all make and I sincerely hope and believe that the Bill will help them in their important task.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow):
I recognise that the subject of this debate strikes at the heart of this country's identity and values. The debate has been kept alive by the extraordinary commitment, perseverance and dedication of the Civilians Remembered campaign.
Let us remember those civilians: 60,595 died in this country during the second world war and half of those--29,890--died in London. With those people in mind, let us remember what the debate is about. It is no exaggeration or cliche to say that it is about honour and sacrifice on the one hand versus private interest and profit on the other. Heaven forfend that private interest and profit have no place in our society--they certainly do--but there are times when public interest and national dignity demand precedent, and this is one of them. Surely the matter is one of national significance, for if the second world war is not a matter of national significance, I do not know what is.
Within that national agenda, I should like to place on record the local circumstances. The House will be pleased to learn that, when the London Docklands development corporation withdrew from Wapping earlier this year, it left behind many new opportunities for Londoners. However, as well as those new opportunities, the LDDC left scars, especially in the minds of the original east enders--the residents of Wapping and the Isle of Dogs. The London docks were, and still are, a hard place in which to live and work--if one has work, that is--but they have always been renowned as a proud place, with a community that looked after its members. The ultimate test of that came during the blitz. As we are all aware, Hitler hoped to create panic and civil unrest to stop people going about their war-related jobs, thus knocking Britain out of the war. The strategy did not work, but many of my constituents remember how hard it was to live through those nights. Many lost civilian friends and relatives--for example, at Bethnal Green tube station, 167 civilians died in the panic to escape bombing.
It is those who made sacrifices and those who lost loved ones whom the Civilians Remembered campaign sought to commemorate when it applied for planning permission for a permanent memorial park in honour of civilians who had died in the war. The chosen location was the Hermitage site--the last open space on the riverside in my constituency. In addition, the wharf on the site was itself destroyed by a direct hit from a German land mine. Surely there could be no more fitting place.
My constituents had hoped that the LDDC--a body which had taken away so much of what was familiar, often replacing it with the unfamiliar and unwanted--would hand over the Hermitage site as a fitting location for a memorial park. Unfortunately, in the face of that heartfelt public demand, the LDDC sold the land to a property developer whose only aim was to profit by raising yet another block of luxury apartments on the river bank.
Hon. Members may be aware, having heard me speak in the House previously, that there is a desperate need for housing in my constituency, but we no longer need luxury
riverside apartments which local people will never have a hope of living in. As the local planning authority, Tower Hamlets council asked the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to take the decision on the competing planning applications for the site. It was advised that planning applications are called in only
Although I appreciate that the Minister has a quasi-judicial role in overseeing the enforcement of planning law, which may mean that he is unable to comment on the merits of the planning applications, I should be grateful for his response to my concern at the Government's decision not to decide on the planning application themselves. That decision was taken in the full knowledge that the planning regulations gave Tower Hamlets development sub-committee hardly any option but to pass planning consent to the Berkeley Homes proposals. In fact, councillors on that committee have said that they believed that they might face a surcharge if they did not consent to the Berkeley Homes scheme.
In those circumstances, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that a permanent and fitting--I reiterate, fitting--memorial site to the civilians who died during the war is an issue of national importance and should not be decided at local level. I also draw the Minister's attention to the fact, of which I am sure that he is aware, that on Friday 24 April, at an extraordinary meeting of the Tower Hamlets planning and environmental services committee, the draft unitary development plan was amended to include a designation of metropolitan open space for the Hermitage site.
Moreover, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it is unrealistic to squeeze a public memorial into what will, effectively, be a private garden for wealthier residents, living in those luxury apartments. It is not only disingenuous, but an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives that no space can be set aside for quiet contemplation by those who lived through the blitz. We also need a place where younger people--my generation--can consider what happened and why we have some of the freedoms that we have today. They will not be able to do so by staring at a block of luxury apartments. In other words, this is a legacy that we need to bequeath to future generations. I should also add that it is impossible to express the disgust that my constituents feel at this site being given to property interests over and above the interests of the nation.
There are fairly obvious reasons to call in the planning application. There is the national significance, there is the fact that, in Tower Hamlets, we do not have enough green space and there is the fact that we have the greatest overcrowding in Britain. Self-evidently, we need no more luxury apartments. Putting all that to one side, I appreciate that Berkeley Homes is willing to offer 40 per cent. of the
land as a memorial park, but I would say that even60 or 80 per cent. is not enough. British civilians did not give a 40, 60 or 80 per cent. effort; many gave their lives. We must take that into account.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing parliamentary time for the debate. In doing so, she represents the sentiments of many people, not only in London, but throughout the country.
I pay tribute to the tireless work of the Civilians Remembered campaign. Civilians Remembered has established itself as a vigorous and committed campaigning group, whose intention is to honour civilians who lost their lives in this country during the second world war. It is composed of ordinary east end people who have demonstrated extraordinary tenaciousness in their efforts. Although local people's thoughts have a special focus on the east London victims of Hitler's bombers, there is no getting away from the fact that people in other parts of the country--indeed, the rest of the country--who lived through the second world war, as well as those who were not alive at the time but who wish to pay their respects, would welcome a permanent and public memorial to represent the nation's collective honouring of the dead.
In picking up the thoughts of my hon. Friend on the Hermitage site, I feel sure that I echo the thoughts of many people in this country who experienced the war at first hand. They need a tangible expression--a physical presence--to demonstrate that we remember.
Those of us who have not had the experience can hardly begin to imagine what it must have been like to have to respond, night after night, to the sound of air-raid sirens; to vacate our homes for the protection of air-raid shelters; to emerge from those shelters to find our homes destroyed, our shops, factories or cinemas--indeed, whole streets--obliterated and, worst of all, to discover that family members, friends, neighbours and colleagues had been killed by the overnight attacks of the Luftwaffe on its latest bombing raid. In the face of Hitler's attempts to bomb the British people into submission, people stood together and made a remarkable contribution to the war effort and the defeat of the Nazis.
That spirit and resolution demand a public memorial, and it is incredible that such a memorial is not already a long-standing reality. The deaths of 60,000 civilians in Britain during the second world war, and the injuries inflicted on 1,000 more, surely deserve serious and enduring recognition.
In recent months, I have attended several memorials to members of the fire services who died in the war. I was a member of the London fire brigade for more than 23 years. Specifically, there have been two ceremonies to commemorate the single largest loss of life of fire brigade and auxiliary fire service members at Old Palace school on 10 May 1941. The memorial services at the school in my constituency and at Beckenham cemetery were very moving, and I should
mention the important role of Stephanie Maltman in researching the history of this event as well as the tragedy at Gainsborough school in Plaistow and many others. Indeed, more than 300 members of the London fire service and the AFS who died during the second world war were commemorated only with the unveiling of a statue near St. Paul's cathedral by the Queen Mother in the past decade, but at least their sacrifice now has a physical memorial, and I congratulate all those who were involved in ensuring that that fitting tribute became a reality.
I know also that colleagues in the London borough of Newham, especially Councillor Chris Rackley, are keen to establish a memorial to civilian casualties near the royal docks in the new barrier park. Despite the fact that the events of which we speak occurred more than half a century ago, the memories are still as fresh to the families and friends of those who died as they are to those who survived.
There was some controversy when the nation purchased the Churchill papers for £13 million. Many people questioned whether that was how the people's money should have been spent, and time will tell. I believe that there would be widespread support were a similar decision taken to purchase the Hermitage site for the nation.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe that it would be wrong to penalise the developers, Berkeley Homes, financially. I hope that the company would be prepared to sell the site to the nation. I therefore challenge the idea that the best use for the Hermitage site is the proposed development of luxury apartments for sale, and retail and commercial units, with a memorial park for use only as an amenity space for that development.
A memorial park created under those circumstances will not constitute an acceptable substitute for the creation of a national memorial park to honour civilians nationally. Such a national memorial can never compensate families for the loss of loved ones, but it can at least show a national will and determination to remember them always. That much we can do.
I appeal to the Minister not to close off that prospect. I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong when he declined to call in the planning application for further review. As my hon. Friend said, we believe this to be a matter of more than local significance. It is still not too late. If we had a London mayor, he or she would find it impossible to resist the pressure to establish such a memorial.
Every November at remembrance services across the country, we conclude with the pledge, "We will remember them." For the civilian casualties of the last war in the United Kingdom in general and in London in particular, but especially for the east end, those words ring hollow and will continue to ring hollow until we have a suitable memorial where people can pay their respects. For many families, there are no graves. This is a matter not of jingoism, but of acknowledging our heritage, paying tribute and learning the lessons of war.
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7531/97, a draft Directive establishing a framework for Community action on water policy, and 12929/97, the Commission's proposed amendments to this draft Directive; endorses the Government's proposed approach to negotiations on the proposal in the Council, also takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6177/94, a draft Directive concerning the quality of bathing water, and 12591/97, an amended draft Directive on the quality of bathing water; and endorses the Government's approach to the proposal.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.
7.35 pm
"if planning issues of much more than local importance are involved."
I return to the point: could there be an issue of more significant national importance? I understand that, in deciding to allow the applications to be determined locally, the following factors were taken into account. First, the development proposals are in accordance with the soon-to-be-adopted unitary development plan; and secondly, they are in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector on the previous application.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |