| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Radioactive Waste
Q9. [85193] Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): What plans he has to develop a policy on the long-term storage of radioactive waste.
The Prime Minister: Existing radioactive waste is stored at licensed sites under strict regulatory controls and in accordance with the highest international standards. We want to ensure that the long-term management of waste continues to ensure public safety and the protection of the environment. We shall publish a consultation paper on that around the end of the year.
Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the latest research from Sussex university comparing the costs of reprocessing and of dry storage as methods of dealing with spent fuel, will he include the future of nuclear reprocessing in the terms of reference of the Green Paper?
The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has expressed that point of view and his concerns on several occasions. I assure him that the full range of safety, environmental and economic issues associated with reprocessing were considered in exhaustive detail during the process of consultation before THORP was commissioned. But if we were to question the continued operation of THORP, that would not be right. THORP is an operation with orders valued at some £12 billion, it provides 6,000 skilled jobs and it indirectly supports many more. We have to deal with the issue of radioactive waste, but I do not support the case of those who would like us to abandon THORP.
Engagements
Q10. [85194] Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): Why, based on the Government's figures, between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1999 in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust area, has the number of people waiting 13 weeks or more for out-patient treatment risen from 555 to 2,422; the number of people waiting 12 months or more for hospital treatment risen from 104 to 1,093; and the total hospital waiting list figure increased by 1,500 people?
The Prime Minister: I do not know the details of the individual hospital. I am happy to accept the figures the hon. Gentleman gives, but I will check them if I may.
There is no doubt about the figures for the whole country: the waiting lists have fallen after years and years of rising. Waiting times in the whole country have fallen, and more out-patients are now being treated than two years ago. The health authority deficits that we inherited were £500 million for the whole country. They came down to £100 million last year and, I can tell the House, now stand at £12 million. Yes, it will take us time to turn around a health service that under the Government the hon. Gentleman supported was undermined and ruined every day. It will take us time, but with the extra investment that we are putting in--more nurses, more doctors and more capital spending--everywhere, including mid-Essex, will feel the benefit at the next general election.
Points of Order
3.32 pm
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following Welsh questions today, I wish to ask for your guidance before the next Scottish questions. As you know, in Scotland, there is now a formal coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. Is it appropriate for the Liberals to be treated in this House as members of the Government in terms of Scottish questions or as members of the Opposition? In particular, what is the position of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who, although he sits on the Opposition Benches, is a Minister of the Crown?
Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already given the position some thought. Members of the Liberal Democrat party are not represented in Her Majesty's Government in this House, so as far as I am concerned, it remains an Opposition party. It is as clear as that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister might reasonably have anticipated that at least one question in the past half hour would have referred to what has happened in the past 24 hours in Macedonia. Through no fault of the Prime Minister's, he was not asked such a question. In those circumstances, has there been any request from the Defence Secretary or the Prime Minister to make a report to the House of Commons? Surely we deserve to know what is happening, whatever one's view of the continuous bombing.
Madam Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have had no indication that the Government are seeking to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that in January last year, the Prime Minister set up a second judicial inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday, involving members of the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment. I am distressed that the Prime Minister has slunk away from Question Time immediately. I wonder whether you have heard from him, in view of the fact that he has responsibility for security matters, that he intends to come to the House to explain why he refuses to accord the right of anonymity to those former members of the regiment who have been called to give evidence and whose lives are now at risk. This very afternoon, in advance of a hearing in the High Court tomorrow, the solicitors acting on behalf of the inquiry released to the relatives of those who died and were wounded in that incident the statements given by those soldiers containing their names, ranks and numbers.
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. As I explained earlier, I have not been informed by any Minister--including the Prime Minister--that he or she is seeking to make a statement today about any issue.
Concessionary Television Licences for Pensioners
3.35 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the concessionary television licence entitlement to all pensioners living in households consisting only of pensioners; and for connected purposes.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): Disgraceful.
Mr. Winnick: I could not agree more. The issue has certainly not gone away since then. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport receives more correspondence on this subject than on any other topic. I see the Minister nodding his head.
Several weeks ago, it was reported that the committee examining the future of BBC funding and the concessionary scheme had decided to recommend that all existing television licence concessions should go. Within hours of those press reports, the Government--I believe at the highest level--made it clear that any such recommendation would be rejected; and rightly so. I hope that Mr. Gavyn Davies and his committee--who are to report next month--will make a very different recommendation for pensioners.
I want to see the existing concession extended to all pension-only households. I believe that that is fair, and it is something for which I and many of my hon. Friends have campaigned for many years--even before I introduced my private Member's Bill in 1987. I accept that such a concession could probably be introduced only in stages because of the cost involved. While I would like to see the concession extended to all pensioner-only households--that is the purpose of my 10-minute rule Bill--I would welcome any compromise and progress towards its introduction on a wider scale. For example, the television licence fee could be halved for pensioners, it could be a third of its present cost or the concession could be granted to pensioners over 70 years of age. Those are some of the ways of achieving our objective.
Of course, we need good pensions. I sometimes hear the argument--not from my colleagues, but from various organisations--that a good basic pension, rather than concessions, is required. Which Labour Member is not in favour of a good basic pension? We have always called for that. However, that aim should not be used as an argument against concessions.
All pensioners in my own area, in London and in many other parts of the country receive a bus pass. Is that not right? Does it not assist pensioners a great deal? They certainly appreciate it. They would certainly have difficulty meeting the costs involved if they could not
travel for free on the buses at most times of the day. All Labour Members are again very pleased about the assistance that the Government have provided to pensioners with winter fuel bills. I remember arguing constantly from the Opposition Benches in previous Parliaments that such a payment should be introduced, and this Government provided that assistance as soon as they came to office. From next year, all pensioners will receive £100 towards their winter fuel bills. That demonstrates our concern for people of pensionable age.
It has also been argued that pensioner incomes have increased over the years. I accept that since I introduced my private Member's Bill 12 years ago, there has been a modest improvement, which is welcome. That is largely due to various occupational schemes taking effect as people have retired in the past few years. There should, however, be no misunderstanding: the latest figures demonstrate that 63 per cent. of pensioners are in the bottom half of income distribution. The figures for 1997-98 reveal that 42 per cent. of single pensioners were in the lowest fifth of household incomes. Clearly, many of our fellow citizens of pensionable age are experiencing poverty or near poverty.
I am often asked why I put so much emphasis on television. As they grow older, many pensioners find that their television set is extremely important, particularly in the winter months and if they live on their own. Television is an important link with the outside world, not simply a form of entertainment. Without television, there would undoubtedly be far more isolation and loneliness for the people to whom I have referred.
I could quote endlessly the letters that I have received from people around the country. Those who know of my concern write to me about my proposal to introduce a Bill on this matter. I shall refer to only one letter. A pensioner in Worcester wrote to me last month saying that she is a widow who receives, in all, £76.25 a week, and that for people such as herself, the television is the main source of news and entertainment and, in her case, the greatest companion. She concluded her letter by saying that a £5 fee would be a great help to her. How many more pensioners throughout the country take the same view?
There are anomalies in the current system. I receive letters from people who say that their pensioner next-door neighbour pays £5 while they must pay the full amount. We know the explanation for that. The Tory Government made it far more difficult for local authorities to make applications for concessionary television licences. There was a successful court case and the Conservative
Government were frightened that the concessionary door was being opened too wide, so they tightened the restrictions in May 1988. Those who lived in certain accommodation prior to May 1988 therefore receive the concession, and rightly so, but those who moved in afterwards pay the full amount. One can imagine the resentment that they feel. That does not, I suppose, make for good relations between neighbours. That is one of the most blatant anomalies.
Other countries have more generous television licence schemes for pensioners. In the Irish Republic, licences are free for those who are entitled to the state pension. France and one or two other countries have schemes that are more generous than ours.
What about the cost? Of course, I accept that a substantial cost would be involved. That could be borne by the Exchequer or by an increase in the licence fee. After all, everyone hopes to reach pensionable age. If the measure were introduced in stages, the cost would be lower. If, in the first instance, the concession were given only to the over-70s or if the licence fee were reduced, as I have suggested, by a half or a third, there would be less cost to the BBC or the Exchequer. If the £5 concessionary fee was increased, but only--I stress the word "only"--if the scheme that I am advocating was introduced, that would also reduce the overall cost.
I do not for one moment accept that we cannot afford to introduce a more generous scheme. We are a rich, advanced country, and pensioners are absolutely right to ask for this reform. They have been campaigning for it far longer than I have been. We should make a move in the right direction, so I decided to introduce this ten-minute Bill. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration and that, over time, we shall make the progress on this issue that so many of us want.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |