| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to a response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) about the disposal by landfill of cattle carcases. He was told that 6,100 carcases suspected of having bovine spongiform encephalopathy had been disposed of by landfill, but that the locations, details and dates were too expensive to be provided. As a Back Bencher interested in environmental protection, I have been endeavouring to pursue the issue for some months but am finding it frustrating and almost impossible to operate solely by means of parliamentary questions and answers which are later contradicted and countermanded. I wonder whether you could advise me, Madam Speaker, whether you keep a record of the number of times Ministers have to correct their parliamentary answers to hon. Members so that, in the absence of any authoritative report on the disposal of carcases from the BSE cull, a Back Bencher like myself can arrive at the truth.
Madam Speaker: There is no way in which I can keep track of all that Ministers say in the House, any more than I can keep track of what Back Benchers say--[Interruption.] I am perfectly aware of what is happening. I was asked a question by the hon. Lady and I have every intention of replying to the point of order.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am glad that the hon. Lady is not referring to the over-30-months scheme, which of course came into operation in the spring of last year; clearly, she is referring to earlier periods. I give her and the House an undertaking that I shall discuss the matter further with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and then return to the House.
Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order. The Minister has answered the hon. Lady; he will take the matter up with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and will report back to the House as a result of the hon. Lady's point of order.
Orders of the Day
Opposition Day
[7th Allotted Day--first part]
Public Responsibility For Social Justice
3.33 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I beg to move,
- That this House calls for a concerted effort to eradicate poverty and create full employment; believes in a society free of social injustice and inequality where decent, democratic values ensure that priorities become the defeat of homelessness, the maintenance of free health care and the guarantee of dignity from cradle to grave for all citizens; pledges itself to working against the politics of selfishness and greed and to developing a society where the contribution of the whole community is sought and valued; and, for the above reasons, rejects the Government's proposed spending plans for 1997-98 and 1998-99.
Politicians are not held in the highest regard at any level of political activity--community council, local council, Parliament or Europe. However, my experience during 15 years in the House is that the majority of Members of Parliament work very hard on behalf of individuals and hold dearly concepts of social and economic justice. We do not always achieve the results that we want, but there is a genuine consensus among politicians that we are here to represent people and we want to achieve the best for them.
It is tempting to concentrate on what the media tell us are the critical issues of the day, but we should step back from that from time to time and consider what we are doing as legislators, because that is fundamental to all of us. Everyone in the House--I am glad to see a substantial number of hon. Members present--should ask themselves why they signed up to represent their party and why they decided to become involved in politics, particularly when many people appear to regard politics as despicable.
I joined my party for a simple reason. People are always asked why "they" did not do something. That "they" was a grey, amorphous organisation. People should ask, "Why don't I become involved? Why don't I do something about what is happening in my community and my country?" As a young student at Glasgow university--that well-known breeding ground for politicians--I listened to our lecturers talking about history, culture and literature. I was struck by the words of John Donne, the metaphysical poet. Metaphysical poets are one of my great joys in life. I read them regularly. John Donne wrote:
When this institution was founded, we did not have electronic media or journalists wanting a quick quote on every issue. In one respect, insularity and immediacy have perhaps undermined our political process. Those who fought for you and me, Madam Speaker, to have the right, as women, to be members of this House and to vote did so because they believed that society would be changed irrevocably through representation. Indeed, such campaigns have changed many aspects of society.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
The hon. Lady made some interesting observations about people saying not, "What can I do about it?", but, "What are they going to do about it?" I received 30 letters from children at a school in my constituency asking what I, the Government or somebody else could do. Only one out of 30 letters said, "What can I do?" It seems to me that the desire to fob off responsibility starts at far too early an age and I honestly do not know how to tackle that problem.
Mrs. Ewing:
The hon. Lady has raised a genuine point that I shall address later in my speech. We all, as individuals, have a responsibility to contribute to society and the values and visions that we hold dear.
I studied history at university and it is clear from our history books that many social reforms would not have occurred without representation. One such example is slavery. People were told that black people could not be freed from slavery as they would not cope with society. I pay tribute to those who argued against that in Parliament and, with great difficulty, achieved the abolition of slavery.
Representation helped to remove the horrendous attitudes that allowed small boys and girls to work as chimney sweeps and stopped them being sent up chimneys to clear out the soot. I do not believe that the welfare state would have been established without representation. Those fundamental issues should underpin every aspect of our work as Members of Parliament, councillors, Members of the European Parliament, members of community councils or any organisation that works for society.
One reason why the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) and I tabled today's motion is that there seems to be a lull in politics. We no longer talk about visions and values. Perhaps it is the immediacy of having microphones stuck under our noses and having to make comments to journalists.
Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr):
The hon. Lady will be aware that only this week my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security announced far-reaching changes to the pensions system, looking well into the next century. Does that not suggest that we take a long-term view rather than relying on short-term soundbites as she suggests?
Mrs. Ewing:
I shall return to pensions later in my speech. The problem has been with us for many years and it is sad that such a major issue now seems to be part of a general election campaign rather than being addressed seriously by the House of Commons through a series of meetings in relevant Committees and elsewhere.
As I was saying, there seems to be a lull in politics whereby we deal with immediate rather than long-term issues. Lloyd-George described himself in "Dod's" as a Welsh nationalist and a radical, but he dropped that description in 1922. I wonder why we have dispensed with the idea of being radical and examining long-term issues. Did it start in the 1960s with the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy, or was it with the "Sermon on the Mound", as we refer to it in Scotland, when Baroness Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society"?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth):
What my right hon. and noble Friend said was that there was no such thing as society; society consisted of individuals who have to make their contribution. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to misrepresent my right hon. and noble Friend. In the spirit in which her speech is intended--to have a serious debate and move away from soundbite politics--and given that her party is quoting that Scotland has had a surplus since 1978 of £26 billion, will she confirm that, on the basis of her own figures and her party's calculations, which are of course misconceived, Scotland in fact had a deficit of £25 billion over the past four years and therefore received a contribution from England?
"No man is an Island, entire of it self . . . And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
Whatever our party or our constituency, we are all here to talk about the people for whom the bell tolls. Politics is about the involvement of people. It is about thought and analysis of the situation in which we find ourselves.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |