| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Easter Adjournment
3.51 pm
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con): I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. I always like to attend the whole of these debates—I think I qualify as one of the regulars—but unfortunately other matters took me away earlier.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac)—also one of the regulars. From time to time, she mentions her birthday. I cannot believe that the years go past so quickly. She once described herself as Minnie the Minx. It might be said that she still has the youthful qualities of Minnie the Minx, but she also has the statesmanlike qualities of a Government Back Bencher.
The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to the Whips as the gods of democracy. I realise that of course she was referring to the Government Whips, who are indeed very much gods. I am an Opposition Whip. We are probably from the underworld, but it is a great delight to address the House from the other side of the River Styx about some of the issues that affect my constituents, and more widely.
During the Christmas Adjournment debate, I mentioned that my mother was in hospital. Members on both sides of the House were kind enough to wish her all the best. It was good to know that people took an interest and she has certainly recovered. It was useful for me to see the NHS in action.
I hope this does not become a regular part of my speeches, but my mother, who is rather like me and of an awkward nature, has decided that she should feature every time we have an Adjournment debate. At the end of last week, she was readmitted to Hillingdon hospital, with another complaint—she has broken something in her ankle. Once again, my first-hand experience of the accident and emergency department at the hospital has been only good. Even my mother has to admit that the food she is receiving in hospital, which last time she was kind enough to describe as pig swill, is now perfectly acceptable, although as she is in bed most of the time she does not find it very easy to eat. However, if I am lucky enough to get home this evening in time to visit her in hospital, I shall do what I can to help her.
Sadly, my mother has been disabled for some time. Tomorrow, the other Hillingdon MPs and I will be speaking to DASH—the Disablement Association Hillingdon. One of the problems that the group has been made aware of is the accessibility of public transport to disabled people. From first-hand experience with my mother and other people, I know that accessibility has improved in recent years but a range of problems remain to be addressed. Strangely, we do not really understand such problems until we experience them; we may do so through somebody else, as I did, but some people unfortunately experience them for themselves.
Some of the problems are not apparent straight away. Request stops for buses are an obvious example. I have to say that until I came across the issue, I would not have thought that it was a problem. I now realise—it is quite apparent—that people who are partially sighted or blind have a real problem; they do not know when a bus is coming. I am not sure whether request stops comply with some of the disability laws. There is also
evidence that some bus companies give their drivers contradictory information on whether people are allowed to bring mobility scooters on to the vehicle. That causes many problems and much distress to some people, because some people with mobility scooters are allowed on and some are not.
There are differing reports about problems to do with audible announcements. I have to say that there have been vast improvements in public transport. I do not think that we can deny that, but there are still problems. Some people have suggested to DASH, and to me, that the audible announcement service is inconsistent, and that sometimes drivers switch off the facility. Even if one is fully in control of all one’s faculties, sometimes it is difficult to know where the stops are, but if a person has a disability of any sort, that information, which can now be supplied, is invaluable.
Members often hear of cases in which the ramp allowing people in wheelchairs or of limited capacity on to the vehicle is not working properly. The bus operating company and the people in charge will say, “No, the ramp is there,” or “The information is there, and it should be used.” Sadly, the reality is that that is not always so.
I now come to an issue that I have often raised, but have not mentioned for a little while. However, I make no apologies for raising it again now. A couple of days ago, it was the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend an event that was held here; I was visiting my mother in hospital. However, I am pleased, in some ways, to report that things have moved on. I have attended several meetings, in this place and elsewhere, that have shown that this country, and what is now Serbia, now have a much more positive attitude about the way forward. To a great extent, that will be through the European Union. Enlargement is a whole other subject, however, and I shall not go into it today, but I do want to raise an issue of great importance.
It is often the victors who write the history, and some things are not always mentioned. An investigation was initiated by The Hague tribunal in 2003 and 2004 concerning crimes committed against Serbs by Albanians, who forcibly took their vital organs and traded them. The case concerned just under 1,300 Serbs and Roma people who disappeared during the conflict in Kosovo. The evidence, mentioned in Carla Del Ponte’s book, tells how those Serbs and Roma were removed from their homes, taken forcibly to a place in northern Albania called Burrel, and had their organs removed in a psychiatric hospital. People were left dying in horrible conditions, and the organs were sold.
I mention that because when we consider all the conflicts around the world, sometimes it is those forgotten details that we should concentrate on. When we try to get people together to work towards a new order, it is important that crimes and atrocities—committed, no doubt, by both sides—are treated equally. Therefore I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he will draw the issue to the attention of his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and report back on the Government’s position.
Of course, one of the features of Easter time is—I speak very passionately about this—the sales in retail department stores. I make no apology for that, because at least this time the Government are hoping that consumers will elevate the economy by spending money.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): At Randalls.
Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend mentions the name of a leading store in a certain part of my constituency, but I am not thinking only of that. It behoves us all to go out and spend money. I disagree with the Government about the VAT cut, but I shall ignore that and say that I am sure that throughout the country there will be bargains aplenty. [Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House is right; sometimes, I get carried away with my own marketing. Seriously, retail outlets—and their suppliers—are suffering, like many other businesses, from the lack of credit insurance. Businesses in my constituency have repeatedly told me that that is as important as anything else. I hope that when we come back after Easter, I will have the opportunity to raise that issue.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) mentioned “The Age of Stupid”—a film, I believe, although it could describe my past few years in Parliament. I will not say why; it might be personal or it might have something to do with the other side. The hon. Lady mentioned climate change and, in an intervention on her, I mentioned the significance of Heathrow and our problems with the Government’s plans for its expansion. That issue will not go away until the glorious day when the Conservative Government take over and those plans are thrown into the rubbish bin for ever.
I also want to make a point that follows on from a speech that I made yesterday in Westminster Hall. I am concerned about a recent event in which a photographer was taking photographs of the houses in Sipson—the village that will be destroyed by the Government’s bulldozers—and the police intervened, allegedly using terrorism laws to explain why the photographs should not be taken. Further to that, my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), was stopped and searched in Birdcage walk; he made a point of order about it here. I am concerned about the way things are going with regard to a lot of these powers. We should take a step back. We are worried about terrorism, and rightly so, but our individual liberties should not be taken away from us so easily.
Others want to speak; this is always a popular debate, and I do not want to take up a lot of time. However, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, the birthday girl, mentioned tourism. Uxbridge and the London borough of Hillingdon in general are excellent places for people to come and stay; they can visit the capital and will not be far away from the countryside. However, the arrangement will be reciprocal. I am going to Norfolk for five days, and it will be the highlight of my year, as I will be able to get away from it all. The great thing is that mobile phones do not work terribly well where I am going, so I will not be bothered too much.
On a final note, next week I am taking part in a sporting event—that may come as a shock to many colleagues. I am saying this because I do not know whether this will be the last speech that I make in this House. I expect to be on the field at Twickenham on behalf of the Lords and Commons rugby team. In case there is an imminent by-election, I would like to thank all the Members of this House, all the Officers of the House, the staff, the civil servants who help us, and all my colleagues. I have had a great time, and I could not think of a better way to go: I wish you all a happy Easter.
4.5 pm
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): It is a delight to follow the possibly soon-to-be-late hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall); it has been a pleasure to know him. I did not think he wanted another by-election in Uxbridge, but if that happens we will not dance on his grave but will remember him in the most appropriate manner.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak—I can see that my good friend, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) wants to say a few words—so I shall try to keep my remarks a bit shorter, even though I was told earlier to make them a bit longer. Somewhere between the two, I shall try to make a particularly apposite and relevant speech. I wish to raise four issues: three briefly, but one at greater length as I am very concerned about it.
The three brief issues are, first, something on which I have campaigned with other hon. Members, namely wage compensation for those in the automotive industry to go along with training packages; secondly, the demand for a supermarket ombudsman; and, thirdly, some of the issues to do with energy efficiency and fuel poverty. I want to talk at slightly greater length about school staff suspensions, which is irking me at the moment.
The issue of wage compensation has been well rehearsed by my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It affects my constituency, and I hope that the Minister will take on to other Ministries the plaintive plea that we must do something about it as a matter of urgency. Two of my local companies, Delphi and Renishaw, have staff on short-time working. With the help of several agencies—the regional development agency, Gloucestershire First, Business Link, and the learning and skills council—those companies have got together some effective packages for training to use some of the spare time that people have to ensure that when the recession ends, let us hope sooner rather than later, they will be ready to deal with the upsurge in demand. These are state-of-the-art companies—the best of British manufacturing and the future of British manufacturing.
I could have gone on at great length about the anti-industrial culture of this country, citing the book by Martin Wiener written in 1981—“English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit: 1850-1980”, which I studied at considerable length. That culture has been here for too long. We have seen our finances crushed, and that is all too obviously why we need our manufacturing industries and need to redress the balance. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose these companies. I do not think that that will happen, but they will be seriously damaged if we do not bolster them and support them.
Like other Members, particularly those I mentioned, I believe that the Government have to move quickly on wage compensation. They should recognise that these companies and individuals are willing to invest in the future, and it is right and proper that the state should do the same given the desperate times in which we live. I have had conversations with the Secretary of State, with the Minister of State and with the Minister for the South West, who has kindly agreed to meet representatives from the two companies as a matter of some urgency. It is right and proper for those of us in this House to continue to make the Government see that they have got to move on this issue.
The second issue is one on which I have formed an alliance with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), who sadly is not in his place, calling for the delivery of a supermarket ombudsman, which has been recommended by the Competition Commission. Sadly, it is opposed by the majority—though not the totality—of supermarkets. He has been in the vanguard of the pursuit of this matter—I have referred to him as the witchfinder-general on more than one occasion—and steadfast, which is the measure of a good Member of Parliament. He took the issue up, followed it through and is dealing with the unfairness that has come about because of the anti-competitive and monopolistic nature of too many of our larger supermarkets, and because of what they have done to the supply chain of farmers, wholesalers and customers, who are entirely at the whim of these behemoths—I think that that is the “in” word.
Mr. John Horam (Orpington) (Con): I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the supermarket ombudsman, because a large Tesco is opening in my constituency shortly. Does he not feel that part of the problem is the local planning authority, which is often suborned into agreeing to Tesco and allows a store to be built in the wrong place because of the money involved? Is not that a real problem, as well as how the supermarkets behave?
Mr. Drew: It is, and it is a separate issue about which I feel strongly. I only wish that the ombudsman could take on those responsibilities—at least by holding the ring for those who wish to complain about the unfairness of the way in which out-of-town stores are developed far too easily, with all the damage they do to our town centres. The ombudsman’s role is clear, precise and easily laid down, and it is up to the Government to deliver that through the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. They must stand behind the Competition Commission and make sure that the commitments made are delivered. We must not allow the supermarkets to do what they usually do by threatening all manner of legal challenges, and of course they will say that the ombudsman will damage prices and the way in which they operate. We know all too well that they have had the field to themselves for far too long, and there needs to be some rebalancing.
On fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I was tempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) because I agreed with many of the things she said. Her hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) introduced the Fuel Poverty Bill, which sadly did not make progress when it came before the House. Issues were raised about the Bill, but it must come back into play, and it should be part of a reorganisation of what is a good news story for the Government. I am proud of the amount of money we have put into addressing fuel poverty, but we could spend the money more wisely, and make even more impact. That is the basis of the current debt review, but the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, is about to publish a report on that topic, so I shall be circumspect about what I say.
We have to pay attention to three areas. First, there is a plethora and confusion of initiatives, which need to be simplified so that the householder is clear about what is on offer, what they should be paying and who is capable of delivering it. Secondly, neighbourhood renewal delivery should be the major mechanism involved, instead
of a pepperpotting of money, which is wasteful and not nearly as effective as it could and should be. Thirdly, we need to recognise that the millions upon millions of hard-to-heat homes that we are left with—where older people often reside—will be more difficult to deal with, and we will need special measures. The cap on the amount of money and the limitation on properties that are more difficult to deal with must be addressed because we cannot afford to have the most vulnerable living in properties that cost enormous sums to heat, which has an impact on our climate.
I shall finish by talking at more length about an issue that has exercised me for much of the last year. I have been wary of mentioning it in anything other than an oblique manner, but I am pleased to say that it has become a topical issue. Anyone who heard “File on 4” a couple of weeks ago knows that the programme considered the number of school staff who are currently suspended, or who were suspended and subsequently lost their jobs. I will not go into all sorts of cases or case law. I am pleased that the Children, Schools and Families Committee has announced an inquiry. I will submit evidence to it in May, and I have spoken to the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who knows how strongly I feel about the matter.
I want to bring two cases to the House’s attention. I will not use names—the people are well known in my area and I believe that they have suffered enough. However, I will set out some of the problems that occurred as a result of what transpired in each case.
The first case involves the head of a secondary school in my constituency, who has been suspended since November. There are genuine concerns about the basis for his suspension, which dates back to an Ofsted report. Interestingly, the report was critical of the governance of the school, but not of its management. It was therefore surprising that the head was suspended. Since then, there has been an exercise in trying to trawl for information to use against him, much of it on the basis that he is guilty of bullying and harassment.
I have known the individual for more than 20 years—indeed, the accusation will be thrown at me that he is a friend of mine. I am proud to call him a friend. In times of need, one does not deny friendship, and one takes up the case. I will continue to bat on his behalf, although the process is difficult. One of the saddest aspects is that he was prevented from watching his son play rugby because his son attends the school. He was told that he was not welcome, not only on the premises but on the sports field. That shows how totally the process can envelop someone.
Since the suspension, the individual has been able to talk to officials on various occasions, but denied the opportunity of talking to governors lest he contaminate those who will eventually make the judgment on his right to continue as head. Interestingly, the teacher union in the school chose to carry out a trawl of its members.
My main criticism—I will deal with three criticisms when I have outlined the other case—is that there is an imbalance between those who are trying to prove their innocence and those who claim that the individuals are guilty and get the process under way.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |