In the House... Debates in the House of Commons 2000-01

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people.

The hundreds of constituents who encounter the daily barriers of age discrimination face persistent and recurring problems that are a blight on their everyday lives. Across the country, thousands of ordinary British people hoped that they had every right to expect a fair deal as they got older. Far too often, the reality is quite different from those hopes and aspirations.

Working in Scarborough and Whitby with the local Age Concern group and the Association of Retired Persons over 50--commonly known as ARPO50--I have tried to set up challenges to the individual cases that have been brought to me in my constituency surgeries. However, this engineer feels that the lack of appropriate parliamentary tools for the job has made the whole procedure of trying to solve those problems far more complicated than it needs to be. That is why I hope that the House will join me in calling for an end, by law, to the discrimination against older people in work, health, public services and the consumer market. We need to have action in law as soon as possible.

I believe that the House should be doing all in its power to create new opportunities for older people to work, volunteer, learn and retrain where necessary, so that they can play the fullest possible part in our society. My constituency is well known as containing a large number of people aged over 50, and my constituency experiences tell me that we in the House should fulfil their hopes and give them a significant and vibrant role in the society in which they want to play a part. In health, housing and the care systems, we need to provide the opportunity of independence and security for all, particularly my elderly constituents. Let us be honest: many of us who are present now will eventually find ourselves over the age of 50. It would therefore be inappropriate for me not to declare a personal interest in that regard.

One year on, what has actually happened? I believe that there has been some progress, but it is modest progress. I commend the Government for tackling ageist attitudes and practices in our national health service, many examples of which have been brought to me in my constituency surgeries. A good start has been made, but, owing to the lack of the readily available parliamentary toolbox that I mentioned earlier, the battle against age discrimination is far from won. The issue needs a comprehensive focus: we need a comprehensive campaign to tackle it head on. I hope that my proposals for the establishment of an age equality commission will lead to a national crusade against age discrimination, thereby changing attitudes in our public services to ensure that older people are given equal treatment.

I also commend the excellent work done at national level by Age Concern and its partners during the "debate of the age" programme last year. My Bill seeks to build on the successes of that programme, and the evidence that was gathered during the national consultation. It seeks to encourage and support the Government in the fight against age discrimination in which they need to engage.

Earlier this month, the employers forum on age, chaired by Howard Davies, produced an important yet simple manifesto entitled "End Ageism in Employment". I hope that the newly formed commission would see it as an early priority to consult and involve employers throughout business in order to develop effective, practical, workable age legislation before the deadline of 2006. The commission must focus on the implementation of flexible options at the end of people's working lives, and it must include a review of the age bars that exist in current employment law. Given that age discrimination in employment costs the country more than £26 billion every year, promoting age diversity in the workplace will be crucial to ensuring the United Kingdom's future competitive and economic success. That key part of the toolbox for our economic future is built into my Bill.

The simple fact is that people continue to live longer and healthier lives than ever before, many having left paid employment in their early 50s. Birth rates continue to fall, and far fewer people are coming into the labour market. Recent surveys across business have established that 91 per cent. of firms are affected by skill shortages, but many employers continue to base employment decisions on grounds of age. I deplore that.

I believe that the employers forum on age offers a promising start. The forum, set up by 170 of the major public and private sector employers, representing nearly 10 per cent. of the UK's work force, is correct to place ageism at the top of the political agenda. Ageism in employment just does not tie in with the country's economic prospects.

I hope that the House will send a clear signal to Government by supporting the Bill. I hope that that will encourage Ministers to review, as a matter of urgency, current employment practices not only in wider industry but, in particular, in the civil service, thereby promoting age diversity and increasing participation in that service by all individuals, irrespective of age. I hope that the Government will then share that practice with wider industry, so that proper legislative propositions may emerge from that test-bed.

I express a simple engineer's view that this debate is of prime importance to our nation's future, as well as very timely. Next week, the House will have further opportunities to consider similar issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). That cross-party approach to the issue of ageism will be appreciated by all hon. Members, and I am encouraged by the support that my proposals have received from members of all political parties in the House. I hope that my proposal finds favour with the House, and that the progress of the Age Equality Commission Bill will offer dignity, security and opportunity to many of our fellow citizens over the age of 50.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Ann Keen, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. Alan Campbell, Angela Smith, Mr. Richard Allan, Ms Rosie Winterton, Mr. Paul Burstow and Mr. Bob Blizzard.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 88].

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Have my right hon. Friend and his taskforce been able to make any progress in opening footpaths, particularly in coastal areas and on arable land? Many people who have made representations to my office feel that some local authorities have shown tardiness in making progress on this important issue. Has any progress been made, either, on preserving the genetic stock of rare breeds, such as the rare hefted sheep breeds on the moors in the North York moors national park?

Mr. Meacher: I pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes). She has taken particular responsibility for getting footpaths and other facilities open and has achieved considerable success. For example, Norfolk has reopened more than half its network, Surrey has reopened a similar proportion and even Cumbria, which has been badly hit by foot and mouth, reopened more than 100 paths before Easter. British Waterways has reopened two thirds of its 1,600 mile towpath network, the Forestry Commission reopened 80 sites before Easter and hundreds of National Trust properties are now open.

Let me say, particularly to Conservative Members, that even authorities, such as Buckinghamshire, that have retained a blanket approach are now responding to public demands to review decisions on individual paths. Such authorities may or may not be playing politics with the Government, but they must understand that they certainly should not play politics with rural businesses in their areas.

We are aware that rare breeds, particularly the hefted Herdwicks on the fells, are a real issue. Those special bloodlines must be preserved and we are still considering the best way to ensure that they are.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Does my right hon. Friend recognise the inequalities in health provision in rural areas such as my constituency? Will he confirm that, in future, hospitals such as Whitby community hospital will be a focal point for dealing with inequalities in dentistry provision and eyesight problems, and that they will form a key plank in our strategy for tackling inequalities in rural areas?

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): My hon. Friend makes a good point. All too often, we perceive health inequalities in terms of the concentration of poverty and deprivation in inner-city or urban areas such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) mentioned. However, as we all know from our constituencies, there are also large concentrations of poverty, deprivation and ill health in rural areas. I therefore give my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) a firm assurance that, when the new formula for distributing cash across the national health service is introduced in 2003, it will have a particular perspective on the way in which we recognise the needs of rural communities.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): My right hon. Friend will know that, on Friday, an outbreak was confirmed at Ashes farm in Ruswarp near Whitby. I congratulate all those who so swiftly tried to nip the problem in the bud effectively. Obviously, the tragedy is that contiguous damage has occurred to livestock, but, given the sense of partnership and the mood in our local community, the lack of bipartisan agreement in the House this afternoon would be found offensive. People in Whitby who have worked with me and people in the NFU office in Whitby who have worked so hard to help people get through the difficult decisions that have been needed will find that lack of agreement most offensive.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the farm is close to the North York Moors national park. The big fear in the minds of many farmers - many of my constituents - is the impact of the problem on hefted flocks. Will he assure my constituents and the House that there are contingency plans to try to prevent the spread of this terrible disease on to the moors, where it would cause far more damage than it has done so far?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the heroic efforts that are being made in the farming community, and in rural communities more broadly, to work with the Government and especially local officials to bring this disease outbreak to a conclusion. He is also right to draw attention to the particular issues and set of problems that confront us in dealing with the outbreak as it affects hefted flocks and moorlands. The issue is important in the area that my hon. Friend represents, on Hexham moor in Cumbria and indeed in the south-west as well. The Government are looking at what can be done to try to contain the disease in the very special circumstances of hefted flocks on moors without having to cull out all the animals on the moorlands.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): My right hon. Friend knows only too well how important tourism is to my constituency. Indeed, both he and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting have recognised the great work of the Scarborough tourism forum. With that in mind, will he comment on the possibility that small businesses, which, obviously, make up the bulk of tourism across the country, may be the best vehicle for marketing the better quality message about what is open?

In the terms of the Yorkshire Post, the start of the season is Easter. We really need to ensure a good start to the season--this year in particular. Will he have urgent discussions with people such as representatives of the Yorkshire tourism authority, to ensure that it works with small businesses?

Mr. Smith: Representatives of the Yorkshire tourist board, along with those of all other regional tourist boards, will be meeting my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting tomorrow to talk through some of the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) is right to stress that the message on what can and cannot be done must be clear. That is why having a central and accessible point of advice is so important. We are urgently working on that.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): First, may I associate myself with all the comments from my fellow North Yorkshire Members of Parliament? My right hon. Friend knows that I come from a railway community in every sense of the word, and that I have spent many years in York, working in the railway industry. Can my right hon. Friend comment on media speculation that the train set involved in the incident today was the same one that was involved at Hatfield?

Secondly, in my right hon. Friend's initial discussions with the Highways Agency, did the agency express any views about the geometry of the slip road? Having worked for many years on incidents connected with bridges on our railways, I endorse the remarks of the Opposition spokesman about the need for progress on the interface between roads and railways. The Highways Agency bridge authorities throughout the country and Railtrack must try finally to crack the associated safety problems.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and for his support for the people who were involved in this terrible tragedy and for the emergency services.

I am extremely sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point about media speculation. I do not suppose that it will make any difference, but I wish that they would not speculate without the facts, as that creates difficulties. From the initial speculation, one would have thought that the vehicle fell immediately on to the track. That is just not true. It careered for 100 m, well ahead of the crash barrier. The gradient of the embankment is 1:3. How the vehicle did not turn over is beyond me. It was a high-sided vehicle and was pulling another vehicle.

Events did not happen as the media speculated from an early stage. From time to time we hear from some so-called transport specialist, who has seen nothing but tells us what should happen and what we should change. That is not helpful. It alarms the relatives, because they get the wrong information. We should find out as much as we can, give the information to the House, and trust the report based on the information available at that time. I hope, although I do not expect that there is any chance of it, that the media will avoid speculating about what happened. It does not help, and my hon. Friend's question gives me an opportunity to say so.

It is true, I believe--I hope the inquiry will look into the matter--that one of the power units that was not damaged was one of those involved in the Hatfield crash. I must await the interim report before I can give a definite response. With regard to the slip road and the need to examine bridge and rail connections, the Highways Agency is looking into that. Research is under way and we will make the information available.

Again, as I said, if one looked at the route that the vehicle took down the side of the road and 100 m to the rail, one would not have thought that that would happen. One would imagine that the vehicle would have stopped well before that, but it did not. As in all tragedies, it is never one incident. It is two or three things together that make for a terrible tragedy. Who was to know that when the vehicle came off the road, a fast passenger train was approaching at 125 mph, as well as a freight coal train carrying a massive weight--thousands of tonnes--and travelling at 40 mph? The impact was phenomenal.

That set of circumstances defies belief. If I had come to the House and reported that such an accident had occurred, most hon. Members would have thought that it was not possible. What one learns about tragedies is that the impossible often happens. That is always the difficulty for us when we try to avoid them.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): My hon. Friend refers to the Treasury's response, but does he think that it might not be a negative response, but an ill-informed response and that it is incumbent on all Members who represent fishing communities to ensure that the Treasury is better informed so that the issue can be corrected?

Mr. Mitchell: I would not want to be critical of the Treasury under its current management, but it does not rush around looking for opportunities to spend money. It has certainly had a blind spot in respect of fishing, but the question is how long it can get away with that blind spot. The serious criticism is that it has been reluctant to draw down the European money that is available. There is a reluctance to use the Fontainebleau formula and provide matching funds for European money. The WWF calculates that, between 1995 and 1998, the United Kingdom found 25 million Euro to release 124 million Euro, while Spain put up 389 million Euro and drew down 1.15 billion Euro--a stark and disastrous difference.

Later

Mr. Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Nicholls: Even though this is supposed to be a serious debate, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Quinn: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in the European Standing Committee, we raised the issue of the culling of seals. On that occasion, I quoted the leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, who has visited my constituency. He suggested that Conservative policy was to cull seals because of their effect on fish stocks. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether that is Conservative policy, or does he stand by his earlier comment about how policy is formulated in the Conservative party?

Mr. Nicholls: Fishermen all over the country, including the west country, are seeing their whole way of life devastated and destroyed, yet the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making a clever point by talking about seal culling. That is contemptible.

4.29 pm

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. I was also pleased that the business managers and the Minister listened to what many hon. Members said in the Standing Committee about the need for a debate. Our procedure on this occasion needs to be closely looked at for future reference, as it is much more business-like and removes some of the fireworks that have appeared in previous debates.

I am speaking on behalf of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) decided to concentrate on the history of the situation rather than the future. I represent a community in Whitby that had a tendency to look far too much to the past rather than the future. However, my fishing community--just like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)--which includes fishermen, fish merchants and other producers, has worked together to create a forum that looks after the interests of the north Yorkshire coast. That community is very much looking to the future.

As the Minister knows, I am keen for him to visit Scarborough and Whitby soon to meet people who would like an opportunity to engage him on the subject of the industry's future. There is great optimism among people working in that vital part of my community.

In an intervention on the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I touched on the issue of the amount of fish taken by seals. When the Minister comes to Scarborough and Whitby, my local fishermen will want to raise that issue with him. I hope that he will take this as early notice of one question that he will be asked, and that he will seek scientific advice to deploy when the occasion arises. I understand that, in the House of Lords Select Committee report, Lord Jopling said that seal culling is vital to preserving fish stocks in the North sea. It is a problem around the British coast and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.

I have been told by the fisheries forum in the north-east of Yorkshire that about 1,000 of my constituents are involved in the fishing industry, which plays a vital part in the area's economic life. Indeed, who would ever think of Whitby and Scarborough without thinking of its sea fish and the beautiful scenery in the port area? Although we are in many ways a community that has been declining since about the 1860s, those who work in the industry have innovated and literally changed tack, going out to look for other fish stocks and other ways of making a living.

The Minister will recall that I raised in correspondence with him the important issue of recreational fishing, which brings considerable extra revenue into the Whitby community. I am sure that that issue, too, will be raised with him when he visits--as will the salmon fishery on the Esk and, especially, the shellfish industry in my constituency.

The shellfish industry is a recent notable success, but that is due partly to the environmental catastrophe affecting our cod stocks. The northward drift of cod, combined with increased North sea temperatures, has given juvenile shellfish a better chance of survival. Some marine scientists say that a shellfish's chance of reaching maturity have increased to about 50 per cent.

Consequently, the shellfish industry is flourishing, mitigating some of the effects of lower landings in the area. In recent years, landings at the ports of Scarborough and Whitby--unlike those of my colleagues from the Aberdeen area, which has had 40 per cent. reductions--are down by about 16 per cent.

The primary argument has been put strongly in today's Yorkshire Post. One of my constituents, Mr. Arnold Locker, the managing director of Lockers Trawler Ltd., of Whitby, has eight cod boats. He said that, because of yesterday's announcement, in the next year those cod boats will switch to catching prawns. His decision demonstrates the spirit that exists at the Whitby quayside, where people in the private sector are innovating and going forward.

Arnold Locker employs 56 crewmen and 40 people in a cod-processing factory. The Yorkshire Post rightly reports that morale is at rock bottom and that there is real difficulty in persuading and motivating crews to go out together to earn a living in the North sea. Mr. Locker said:

we've had to change from cod to prawn and it's going to cost me £1 million in gear, a cost which will have to be borne by everyone, owners and everyone.

It's a very worrying situation because we're still waiting for the technical measures to be announced on mesh size for nets which will dictate whether or not we can go for prawn.

I have noticed in the past few months that there is a new attitude among those who work on the quayside, those who want to go to sea and those work in Scarborough and Whitby's fish-processing companies. I think that there is a growing realisation that solutions will be based on an international response. Although the cod recovery programme has been welcomed, the welcome comes with a small caveat. We desperately need transitional support for people such as Arnold Locker, so that they can implement the changes necessary to sustain work and businesses in communities such as those in Scarborough and Whitby.

Those communities are very remote from the main centres of our country. The community that I represent has qualified for objective 2 structural funding because of the decline in our fishing industry and its failure since the second world war. We have to change, set up partnerships and go forward. I still believe that there is a role for the regional development agencies in that process. The Minister may be aware that, over the Christmas period, I had meetings with the Yorkshire Forward RDA to try to persuade it to take a greater and more comprehensive interest in the serious economic needs of Yorkshire's relatively small communities. Such an interest is vital to the communities that I represent.

The impact of yesterday's announcement was summed up by Mr. Ian Duncan, the secretary of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. Last night, in conversations with people from Scarborough, I was asked to quote him in the debate. He said:

We were expecting to lose a leg. Yesterday we lost a foot.

The Government are making real efforts to launch a concerted attack on social exclusion and poverty in many communities. However, if they do not act in areas such as Scarborough and Whitby, we shall be wasting good objective 2 funding and innovative action. Without that action, jobs will be created for the long-term unemployed in some areas, while the 1,000 people working in the fishing industry in my constituency will continue to face problems.

The current situation is not in kilter. I urge the Minister and all hon. Members who represent fishing communities to follow the initiative that I and other members of the all-party fisheries group are promoting to lobby and to argue the case for fishing communities with the Treasury. If there were ever a need for a joined-up approach, this is it.

I commend to the Minister a document that I think he mentioned himself--the World Wide Fund for Nature report entitled "Choose or Lose", by Malcolm McGarvie and Sarah Jones and published in December 2000. It deals with the recovery plan for UK fish stocks, and I consider it to be a very learned report. The executive summary provides a good blueprint, if taken in conjunction with the document produced by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, entitled "Zonal management: a new vision for your fisheries".

The report shows how the fisheries industry can be sustainable. It is, as I have said, a blueprint for what should happen after we have completed the five or so years of the recovery plan--a plan that is being brought about through international partnership, international effort and the good offices of the Minister, who has argued the case for a sustainable industry. Sustainability, however, cannot be delivered by the industry or the fishing communities alone; it will require the help of the Treasury--of central Government--through whatever mechanism is necessitated.

I told my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) earlier that I did not think the Treasury was taking a negative attitude. I think it is taking an ill-informed attitude, and that it behoves us all to fill the vacuum.

I understand from the document released in Brussels yesterday that the plan must be implemented by 1 May 2001. Some weeks remain to us, but there is a missing component, which is not in the control of the fisheries Minister: we need a certain approach from the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions--indeed, an approach from Departments across Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any innovation is taking place at the highest level of Government, and whether the effects on remote communities are being considered.

The parallels are clear. These strike me as being similar to problems that have faced the coal mining community, or indeed the steel industry's problems in the Minister's own town of Scunthorpe. We need a national initiative--a UK across-the-board initiative. The key partners, along with central Government, local government and regional agencies, must unite in producing a sustainable plan that is properly funded.

The Minister visited my constituency several times in a different capacity--as countryside Minister. If he does so again we can promise him an interesting and challenging day. I hope that whenever that day comes--in the next few weeks, perhaps--he will address some of the issues that I have raised.

Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO