| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clearly, the situation affects Dr. Modwadia, his career, his reputation and the livelihood of his family, and it is important that others in a similar position—who are falsely accused and convicted and whose convictions are quashed on appeal—should have the proper level of compensation.
With the current system, under section 133(4) of the Criminal Justice Act, it is not possible to appeal against the decision of the assessor. In this case, the assessor was Lord Brennan, a member of the other place and a distinguished lawyer who clearly understands the way in which the legal system operates. However, despite the eminence of Lord Brennan, the fact remains that if an assessment is wrong—according to Dr. Modwadia, his assessment does not take into consideration his loss of earnings over the past 20 years; he was a qualified doctor and by now he would have been a very senior consultant in a hospital in the United Kingdom—it is extremely important that somebody else should have the opportunity to look at that assessment. Under the current law, no one can do so. I had a private Member’s Bill—a behind-the-Chair Bill—before the House, which has now fallen. It is extremely important to ensure that Ministers are aware of the gap in the law, in relation not just to Dr. Modwadia but to other people in similar situations, and that we have a right of appeal against an assessment that has already been made.
My final point is about Lebanon and a call that I received yesterday from a person who operates a glass-making factory on the road between Beirut and Damascus. Two days ago, he evacuated his employees from the factory, because he feared that bombs might fall on it. The day before yesterday, four Israeli missiles hit the factory and razed it to the ground. There is absolutely nothing left. His concern—and the concern, I am sure, of others involved in similar cases—is what will happen about compensation for British citizens who have property in Lebanon. I rang the Lebanese ambassador, who was not available. I then had a lengthy conversation—it was a bit heated—with the deputy ambassador for Israel. He explained why Israel was doing what it was doing. I have enormous sympathy with the comments made recently by the Minister for the Middle East; I agree with everything that he said about the disproportionate nature of the Israeli attacks—but I put that to one side. My concern is what happens to British citizens whose property is being destroyed.
Clearly the Foreign Office is fully engaged in the cases of those who are trying to get out of Lebanon, and I pay tribute to Ministers and officials, who have moved extremely fast to make sure that as many British citizens as possible are removed and brought to the safety of other countries. However, the worry for my constituent and others is that they have nowhere to register their loss of property. Obviously, the people who worked in the factory no longer have jobs, because the factory is no longer there. We cannot register that with the Israeli authorities, because they have no mechanism for doing so. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will be able to give some indication to the House of what should happen to those who are in such a situation. I look forward to hearing his full response to the three issues that I have raised.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I should have reminded the House that there is an eight-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches. However, it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman was already aware of that.
3.48 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): Unlike my colleagues on the other Front Benches, I will not be able to respond to the debate, because I will have the pleasure of listening to it after I have spoken. I want to speak on three issues and, like others, to address constituents’ concerns; then I look forward to listening to the contributions of others. The three issues concern the licensing laws and how they are being implemented, planning policy guidance and how it applies to and impacts on my constituents, and finally, funding for the voluntary sector in the provision of health care services and the relationship with the NHS.
I shall first deal with the temporary event notice, a mechanism that allows for the temporary licensing of premises. It was introduced in November 2005 under the Licensing Act 2003. Recently a number of my constituents contacted me after a local pub, the Angel in Angel Hill, started playing music in its garden into the early hours of the morning. Residents who had made representations to the local licensing authority to ensure that the pub’s licence restricted the playing of music outside at certain times were, not surprisingly, rather put out by the fact that it seemed that licence conditions were being broken.
After further inquiries were made of the pub, the local council and the police, my constituents were told that the pub was operating under a temporary event notice, and that none of the normal conditions of the pub’s licence applied. The approach taken under the Act is referred to as “light touch”, and the question is how that applies to personal licence holders. At the moment, they simply apply for a temporary event notice and make the council and police aware that they are doing so. There are no grounds for refusal by the council, and there is no mechanism for consultation with local people. In effect, it is a process of rubber-stamping. Today I want to focus on the administrative arrangements for that.
The Government justify that light-touch approach with what they think are highly restrictive conditions applied to the use of TENs. The notices can take effect for only 96 hours at a time, and can be issued only 12 times in a calendar year for any one premises. The consultation undertaken by the Department stated that such notices were intended to apply primarily to representatives of schools or church groups. The TENs were a way of lightening the administrative load on them so that there was not so much paperwork. The problem is that that cosy picture does not really tally with my constituents’ experiences. The reality is that the notices are being used by pubs to avoid the conditions of their licenses. Figures from my local authority, the London borough of Sutton, show that nearly 25 per cent. of notices issued between November 2005 and June 2006 were issued to pubs, so the Angel is no isolated case.
The simple fact
is that the temporary event notice mechanism creates a loophole in the
licensing laws that smart licensees use to get round the conditions
imposed on them after public consultation. I do not blame the pub or
its landlord for using the loophole; I blame the Government for not
foreseeing that get-out clause in the new regime. As a result, for up
to 48 days a year the
licensing laws and the conditions set under them can be set aside and
ignored. That is not light-touch licensing but soft-touch licensing,
and action is required before the
recess.
I have spoken in this House about the problem of predatory developers who apply to build housing on back garden land. Residents in my constituency are running a campaign to protect back garden land from such developers and are asking the Government to change their advice in planning policy guidance. I strongly support that campaign. Current advice under PPG3 designates back garden lands, which is the
“area of land attached to a building”,
as previously developed land. If the back gardens in my constituency and many others like it are designated brownfield land, it becomes ripe for development.
Crucially, that designation fails to take account of factors such as the biodiversity offered by back gardens. A study undertaken by scientists at the university of Sheffield states that urban gardens are a significant source of biodiversity. In fact, their study found that in our gardens there are nearly as many plant species as the total number of native species of flora of the British Isles—that is not just plant species imported from elsewhere, but genuinely native plant species. Back gardens are an important lifeline for the diversity of our ecology.
There is also the issue of the security of back garden land, and developers breaking into it and putting up flats undoubtedly undermines that. In my borough, between 1994 and 2004, an average of 46 new dwellings per hectare were built. That has significantly increased the number and density of homes in my constituency, and put pressure on local infrastructure. At a time when Sutton and East Surrey Water has obtained a drought order, the impact of all that increased development on water supplies cannot be overestimated.
That is only one of a catalogue of problems caused by such overdevelopment. There are more cars on the road, more people trying to use local schools and health services, and a gradual decline in the architectural heritage of the area. Those are all problems springing directly from the designation of back gardens as brownfield sites. A planning system that fails to strike a proper balance between conservation and change is not fit for purpose. As a result, it is losing public support in my constituency.
However, help is at hand, in the form of the private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), the Local Government and Planning (Parkland and Windfall Development) Bill, of which I am a sponsor. I hope that the Government will still find time in this Session to provide the protection that the Bill would give to back garden land by returning the designation to what it should be—not brownfield but greenfield land.
My final contribution to the debate is about my concern for one of the valuable and well-regarded voluntary organisations in my constituency, which is losing some much needed funding. For four and a half years Age Concern in Sutton has run a hospital discharge scheme to support those leaving hospital. The scheme is aimed at people returning from hospital who are judged not to require personal care, and who are therefore not covered by social services care packages.
The principal issue is eligibility, and how different authorities draw up eligibility criteria. The scheme co-ordinators visit the home of an individual leaving hospital to assess any financial, nutritional or safety needs, and take steps to ensure that those are met. Volunteers from the scheme then make weekly visits to the home of the discharged patients, helping with shopping, financial affairs and cleaning. Without this service, those people would have no support once they had left their hospital beds.
Until recently the scheme was funded by a pooled arrangement between the Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust, the London borough of Sutton social services department, and the Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust. However, earlier this year—I think this is driven by financial pressures—the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust began to question the value of the scheme, despite the clear support of patients who had benefited directly from it and health care professionals working for the trust.
Sarah Teather (Brent, East) (LD): Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the pressure on primary care trusts to fund only core NHS matters, so as to meet financial targets, often runs counter to the Government’s objective of linking health and social care? For example, in Brent the PCT has had to cut the money provided to Brent citizens advice bureau, which provides an outreach service at GPs’ surgeries to try to prevent extended consultations there, and it is also cutting grants to organisations funding carers’ activity, which may be counterproductive in terms of the long-term aims, and not cost-effective.
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which many hon. Members in the Chamber today will probably want to make, about the impact of budgetary pressures in the NHS leading to false economies and short-sighted decisions that result in a reduction in services, which will store up further costs for the NHS and lead to poor services being experienced by many of our constituents.
John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): The hon. Gentleman anticipates a phenomenon that is likely to display itself in the course of the debate. Is he aware—he certainly will be when I have finished my intervention—that the Vale of Aylesbury Primary Care Trust is, disgracefully, saying that it is closed to new entrants if they are children with speech and language disorders? Is this not a classic case of a conflict between the Government insisting on the merits of early intervention, and the cost cutters preparing to damage, perhaps irrevocably, the life chances of vulnerable children, in the name of penny-pinching?
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and I look forward to hearing him expound on those points in greater detail if he catches the Deputy Speaker’s eye. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), too, will have the opportunity to detail the consequences for constituents of the difficult financial circumstances that many NHS organisations are grappling with.
My
point is about a voluntary organisation that is doing extremely good
work, but which has been notified that its funding will be withdrawn in
the course of this year. Without that organisation in place, hundreds
of
vulnerable people will leave hospital with no support, which will in
turn increase pressure on hospital beds, because those people will not
be able to leave hospital as promptly as the NHS increasingly wishes
them to.
There will also be an increase in emergency readmissions as a direct consequence. People who have been inappropriately and too hastily discharged will end up having to go back into hospital because their home was unsafe or ill suited, or because they were unable to get out to get the necessary food to provide themselves with a decent meal during their recovery and convalescence. All those matters will increase the direct cost to the NHS, which is why that decision by the local NHS is a false economy. It is a short-sighted approach, and it will lead to long-term costs and consequences.
Adjournment debates such as this are an opportunity for all hon. Members to bring their constituents’ concerns to the House. Those are just three of mine, although I have many others that I would have welcomed the opportunity to air today. I end simply by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a good summer recess, and I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate.
4 pm
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale) (Lab): In the time allotted I hope to raise four issues that are constituency based but have implications for national legislation.
The first case is tragic. In the last two years, two baby girls living in adjoining properties in my constituency have died of acute myeloid leukaemia. We have tried to understand the epidemiology of that cancer, which is rare in young girls, and it has been established that the houses in which they lived were built on a landfill site. There is clear evidence that methane has seeped out from that site and there may also have been traces of benzene, which is a very dangerous chemical.
I suggested to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that it would be a good idea for tenants considering properties that have been built on landfill sites, reclaimed land or brownfield sites, to be told the history of the land so that they can make an informed choice about whether to take on the tenancies. So far the Government have declined to take that up, but I want to press the Minister on it today, because it is a good suggestion, which would allow prospective tenants the opportunity to make decisions about where they live in the knowledge of the conditions in which their properties have been built. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot deal with that matter when he replies, I should be grateful if he passed it on to the appropriate Department.
The second issue that I want to raise concerns wheel clamping. Last year, a constituent of mine in Northwich had his vehicle clamped, he thought illegally. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 placed regulatory controls over wheel clamping companies and the Security Industry Authority implements the regulations. I was advised that for a vehicle to be legally clamped, the owner had to be issued with a receipt bearing the name and signature of the operative, the date and location of the clamping episode, and the registration number of the person doing the clamping. If the receipt does not contain the registration number of a clamping operative, the clamping is illegal and the owner of the vehicle can insist on the clamp being removed.
I was able to prove to the SIA that the receipt that my constituent received did not bear the location, the clamper’s name or the operative’s number. I asked for that to be investigated and the SIA said that it would do so, but would not be able to tell me the outcome. When I queried that, it said that to do so would prejudice its investigation. So I asked it to carry out its investigation and tell me what it had done afterwards. It then wrote back and said that it did not deal with individual complaints. I then asked if the receipt was valid, and after an extensive correspondence I was able to confirm that the receipt was invalid. But the SIA does not have the authority to intervene in individual cases, such as that of my constituent. Individuals need to know what is legal when a vehicle is clamped and whom to complain to if they think that that has been carried out illegally by an unregistered clamping organisation, such as North West Clamping, the company in this case.
The third issue that I raise is another serious matter. On 21 December 1994, a constituent of mine, Stephen Cuddy was murdered in Liverpool city centre by a man who was seriously mentally ill. That person went to prison for manslaughter. On behalf of my constituent Mrs. Cuddy, the mother of the deceased, I have been trying to establish what happened to the person who killed her son. I have established that the man who killed her son was remanded at Kettering magistrates court to Woodhill prison. He appeared in the magistrates court on a number of other occasions, but was released on 21 November 1994. I am trying to establish why that particular individual appeared in court and what conditions were placed on his release. The clerk to Northamptonshire magistrates courts has told me that I need the authority of either a justice of the peace or the Lord Chancellor to look at the court register, and it must also be established whether I am a fit and proper person to apply for that information.
The most important test on the release of information is whether it relates to an ongoing case. However, I am not discussing an ongoing case, because the manslaughter of Mr. Cuddy has been dealt with by the courts. It is important that Members of Parliament and members of the general public have access to such information, because it is on the public record and was in the public domain when that person appeared in the magistrates court in 1994. I find it inconceivable that anyone would refuse a request from a Member of Parliament to obtain such information. Through the auspices of my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, I want to press the Lord Chancellor, because if the rules prevent hon. Members from accessing court records on matters that have been dealt with in open court, then they need to be changed.
Fourthly,
on a much more positive note, my constituency contains Daresbury
laboratory, which is currently devising a new piece of experimental
kit. That is probably an understatement, because the laboratory is a
world-leading research facility, which will take on the next generation
of synchrotron radiation research. The massive piece of kit, which is
only a prototype, accelerates electrons as close as possible to the
speed of light, and the electrons are then peeled off in straight lines
to X-ray materials in real time. That is the lay person’s view,
although I think
that the matter is far more complicated than that. The prototype has
been built at Daresbury, and we are looking forward to a decision
stating that the project is desirable because it will take British
science forward, that the money will be made available and that the
project will take place at Daresbury laboratory. My hon. Friends the
Members for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth), for Ellesmere Port
and Neston (Andrew Miller) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I have met
Lord Sainsbury to press the case. We hope that this time the decision
recognises the world-leading facilities and research at Daresbury
laboratory, which is valuable in terms of not only pure science, but
intellectual property, patents and other associated
matters.
I want to use the final 40 seconds of my speech to pay tribute to my close personal friend, Kevin Hughes, who died last week from motor neurone disease and who was the former hon. Member for Doncaster, North. He was a fabulous friend and great company. He was also an extremely good Whip and had a very good sense of humour, which he kept until the end. When I saw him recently, I said, “Kevin, I see that you are still smoking.” He said, “Mike, lung cancer would be a blessing.” We will miss him greatly—his funeral is tomorrow. I am pleased that I have been able to put my tribute in Hansard to Kevin Hughes, who was a thoroughly decent guy.
4.8 pm
David Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con): Before we rise for the summer recess, I want to say a few words about the ongoing situation in Cumbria.
I want to discuss the dire plight of dairy farmers not only in Cumbria, but across the United Kingdom. In July 2005, a report commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs showed not only that more dairy farms ceased production between April 2003 and April 2005 than had intended to do so in 2003—the increase was 12.4 per cent.—but that the closures were concentrated among the larger herds and the bigger, more profitable dairy farms. If the most efficient dairy farmers are quitting the business in droves, it shows that things are not right in the dairy industry. More than 10 dairy farms have gone out of business in every week in the past two years. There are now more DEFRA staff than there are dairy farms in England, although DEFRA has still been unable to get the single farm payment out in anything like a respectable time.
This is my key
point to the Deputy Leader of the House, who used to be the Minister
with responsibility for consumer affairs. If all our farmers were to
get together—they cannot do this, because they are
philosophically incapable of working together—and said,
“Let’s sell our milk at 20p a litre”, the Office
of Fair Trading would crucify them. When I checked the internet last
week, however, Asda was selling milk at 55p a litre, Sainsbury’s
was, by coincidence, selling milk at 55p a litre, Tesco was selling
milk at 55p a litre and Marks and Spencer was selling milk at 55p a
litre. That is a cartel. For the OFT to say that there is no evidence
of collusion is simplistic. Of course they do not need to
collude—one cuts the price, the others look on the website and
they all follow. It is a cartel, it is ruthless, it is grubby, and it
needs to be stopped. Farmers are selling milk at 14p a litre or, if
they are lucky, 15p, 16p
or 17p a litre. Someone in the middle is making a huge profit. The
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee discovered that 18p a
litre is going missing somewhere. It has to be looked at and it has to
change.
Our economic situation in Cumbria is not good, and I make no apologies for returning to that subject. Economic growth in Cumbria is the slowest of any area in the UK and, indeed, in the whole EU. In those circumstances, we must have EU funding coupled with designation as an assisted area for regional aid purposes. The economy in Cumbria is now as dire as Liverpool’s was when the Government brought in massive intervention to help that city, and rightly so. The Government recently issued a consultation on the content of the national strategic reference framework. I understand that that document will set the priorities of financial allocation for the 2007-2013 structural funds programme. It is vital that it pay proper attention to the needs of areas with low and declining GVA—gross value added—such as Cumbria. It is also vital that when the final draft is published Cumbria should receive a dedicated top slice of the national allocation of regional competitiveness funds. That would not be a precedent for any other county or region of the United Kingdom because no other part of the UK, from the highlands of Scotland to Cornwall to Liverpool, is in as dire a situation as Cumbria.
I hope that the Government can find some sort of special programme for areas such as Cumbria or an increased regional allocation designed to offset the impact of economic decline in such areas. At the same time, we need assisted area designation to allow us to use public funds to invest in the private enterprise that is so importantly needed. I understand that a national consultation is under way on assisted areas, and I say again that the designation must take into account those parts of the UK with low and declining GVA. No other part of the whole of the UK is as poorly off in terms of GVA as we are in Cumbria; in fact, only five other areas in the whole of Europe are as poorly off. We have great economic need that must be targeted. Unless we get that assistance, it will be impossible to arrest the decline in the Cumbrian economy even if our nuclear industry at Sellafield is boosted rather than run down.
Two weeks ago, I got together
with all the Conservative group leaders of councils in Cumbria, those
that we control and those that we do not. We issued a statement saying
that we, as the Conservative representatives for Cumbria, commend
Sellafield as a centre for excellence and research and believe that in
order to sustain our economy, support local businesses and preserve
local employment, we need a new generation of nuclear power stations
and cannot allow the reprocessing facility at Sellafield to be
decommissioned. We called on the Government to invest in Sellafield and
Cumbria’s economy to dispose of all nuclear waste instead of
exporting our waste to be processed abroad, which would export local
jobs. We said that we are pleased that in 2004 3.1 per cent. of the
UK’s electricity supply came from renewable energy, but noted
that the Government are highly unlikely to meet their target of 10 per
cent. of electricity produced from renewables by 2010. We said that
while we believe that renewable energy has an important part to play in
our future energy mix, especially biofuels, of which we should produce
a lot
more, renewable energy will not be able to meet our energy needs for the
foreseeable future. We concluded by saying that in the interests of the
people of Cumbria and of England, we call on the Government fully to
support nuclear power to ensure that more investment of all kinds is
directed to
Cumbria.
Let me say a few words about the continuing saga of our community hospitals. The whole thrust of the recent White Paper, “Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new direction for community services”, is to shift care more into community settings and to boost the role of community hospitals. The Government say that £750 million will be available for capital expenditure to develop care in the community. I want specific assurances on the community hospitals that we already have in Cumbria. In particular, I want assurances on some aspects of paragraph 6 of the White Paper. Do the Government accept that there are now no circumstances in which any of our community hospitals should lose their intermediate care beds? In paragraph 6.31 of the White Paper, the Government express the wish that
“we want there to be an overall shift of resources from hospitals to care in the community settings.”
What will they do to carry it out? What will they do to compel all the hospital trusts to follow the White Paper demands that
“we should see spending on primary and community care begin to grow faster than spending on acute hospitals”?
Paragraphs 6.38 and 6.39 of the White Paper state among other things that
“we will over the next five years develop a new generation of modern NHS community hospitals”.
Paragraph 6.39 sets out the facilities that they should have. Do the Government accept that, in Cumbria, we already have community hospitals, which have 80 to 90 per cent. of what the Government want, according to the White Paper? All the Government have to do is give the community hospitals the funding to continue to their day-to-day running costs. Those facilities should not be downgraded because their running costs are not fully met. Without that assurance from the Government, the next paragraph is worthless.
“However we are clear that community facilities should not be lost in response to short term budgetary pressures that are not related to the viability of the community facility itself”.
My concern about the plan is that the Government have £750 million and that they will spend it on new hospitals in the cities. The rural areas have the hospitals but we will not get money to run them. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure me that that is not the case.
4.15 pm
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): Tempted though I am to try to counter the arguments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) about nuclear energy, I want to consider another matter.
Last
Friday, The Independent printed one of its iconic front pages.
On the left were the flags of 189 countries that supported the United
Nations call for a ceasefire in the middle east and on the right was a
large white space with only three dots of colour—Israel, the
United States of America and the United Kingdom.
That is not where I want my country to be—isolated, tied to a US
Administration run by neocons and headed by a religious
zealot.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |