| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.21 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I welcome this modest proposal, which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) modestly presented to the House. He is a constituent of mine, and I often support him. I hope that the House will support the Bill and not be distracted by arguments about quarantine changes, which can be dealt with at a later date.
1.22 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): it is a myth that quarantine is all about rabies. The pressure mounted by lobby groups to abolish the quarantine laws ignores all the other issues raised in the New Scientist article to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We should therefore not rush judgment on that issue. It is not a question of not wanting to be the Government who let rabies into the country. This matter goes well beyond rabies, to issues such as climatic change and bugs discovered in quarantine cells.
All those matters are being thoroughly examined by a group of experts headed by Professor Kennedy, and we expect to receive its report in May or June. If it decides
that one or more of the five options are as good as, or better than, the status quo, we shall go to full public consultation. I cannot forecast when or whether the usual quarantine regulations will be changed.
The Bill has another good quality--it started life as a ten-minute Bill. I always think that it is a real plus when an hon. Member manages to put something on the statute book by using that process.
We currently have no powers to enforce the welfare code. Thousands of pet owners assume that because the quarantine kennels are registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, they have a seal of approval--that is not the case. We may need to establish a star rating for the quality of welfare.
Mr. Flynn:
I am very grateful for the comments that have been made. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional costs on the great mass of owners of premises, as they accepted the previous Government's sensible policy of operating the code of conduct and conditions with the co-operation of the industry. The only purposes of the Bill in that respect are to eliminate rogue operators who may not comply with the regulations, and to deal with changes of ownership. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 27, at end insert '( ) noise'.
No. 13, in page 1, line 27, at end insert--
Mr. Chope:
First, I point out that amendment No. 13, which was tabled by the promoter, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), is the same as new clause 1, which I tabled, but which was not selected for debate.
It will not have escaped the notice of the House that clause 2 was substantially rewritten in Committee. Indeed, the whole Bill was changed, including its title, which used to refer to "United Kingdom targets". We may be able to say more about that when we discuss the next group of amendments.
I am delighted that the promoter tabled amendment No. 13 and that it is supported by the Minister. It arises from the concern, which I expressed in Committee, that the Bill differentiated between good and bad road traffic--it placed all cars and lorries in the bad category, and all public transport vehicles, however polluting, in the good category.
Clause 1 was amended in Committee so that the definition of road traffic excluded all vehicles with capacity for eight or more passengers. I said in Committee that road traffic comprising vehicles carrying or designed to carry people with disabilities were good, and that the Bill should specify those vehicles as well as public transport vehicles that could carry eight or more passengers.
I also said that the elderly and the disabled often found it more appropriate to travel by taxi. The Minister was reluctant to accept any of my arguments in Committee, but, when pressed by her hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Lancaster
and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who took her to task for not defining taxis as good vehicles, she relented and put her name to amendment No. 13.
I shall concentrate on new clause 2, which builds on the argument that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and the Minister have now accepted on the mobility needs of people with disabilities. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to have regard not merely to the mobility needs of persons with disabilities and the need for adequate taxi services in rural and non-rural areas when considering how to comply with the requirements, of clause 2(1) and (2), but to
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
I hope that my hon. Friend will not think this a frivolous question--it is not intended as such--but what has he in mind when he says young children? Obviously, that is open to interpretation. In discussing the matter with some of my constituents, I found that one of the problems they find it most difficult to come to terms with is the large volume of traffic caused by parents taking children to school. Would the amendment cover that group, and how young are the children that he has in mind?
Mr. Chope:
I was thinking of children up to the age of 10, perhaps, most of whom have to rely on parents, friends and relatives to transport them not merely to school but to places of recreation. I am the father of two children under 10, and I do not expect them to go on trips on their own. They are wholly dependent on their parents and others to transport them. I would certainly not allow my children to go out on their own on the roads on bicycles or to walk.
That is the group of people I had in mind and it is a topical subject today because the Government are crowing about the fact that they will provide extra nursery school places this autumn--60,000 extra, I think. Without doubt, more traffic will result. I am saying that it is a good thing even if more traffic is generated--I see the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) nodding from the Government Front Bench--to enable people to take advantage of those extra places. However, the Government have not put anything on the record to show that they regard it as a good thing. Indeed, the whole tone of this debate has been how important it is to reduce road traffic, yet the Government are today promoting a policy that would increase it. I hope that the Minister will tell us why she thinks--if she does think it--that it is not reasonable that there should be an increase in road traffic as a result of that policy announcement.
The merits of the new clause speak for themselves. Once the House, the Government and the promoter had accepted the principle lying behind their amendment No. 13, it logically followed that my new clause should also be accepted.
'(3A) In considering how to comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State shall have regard to--
(a) the mobility needs of persons with disabilities, and
(b) the need for an adequate provision of taxi services in rural and non-rural areas.'.
"the mobility needs of the elderly and . . . the mobility needs of families with young children;
That is obvious common sense. Many supermarkets and shopping centres make special parking provision for families with young children because they recognise the mobility needs of such families.
and any increase in the volume of traffic that may result from the fulfilment of those needs."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |