|

Adjournment debate

Tuesday, July 22 2008

Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale) (Lab): I want to raise a number of constituency issues that have implications for the Government and for legislation.

First, I shall discuss common land in Norley, which is a beautiful village in the middle of my constituency. It has recently come to light that a company has registered the leasehold of the common land. That affects 28 of my constituents, who fear that they will have to pay for access to their own homes.

The lease is dated 25 December 1999 and is on land valued at about £40,000 with a £10 rent. The Land Registry registered the lease as a good leasehold, because at the time of registration the company that claimed to own the land was unable to prove that it owned the lordship of the manor of Norley and any land that lay within the lordship.

My constituents are concerned that they will have to pay exorbitant prices for access to the land, even though the Government tried to resolve that problem in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which gives people who have used land for access for 20 years a prescriptive right of access.

The Government have four important questions to consider. First, on what basis can a company acquire common land that has been designated as common land for hundreds of years? Secondly, where a company applies to register a leasehold on common land but does not produce the evidence to show that the lessor has the title to that common land, surely the Land Registry should consult local residents who are affected to let them know what is happening and give them the opportunity to get involved in the process, which is nearly 10 years old in this case?

Thirdly, where prescriptive rights of access to common land have been acquired, I want the Government to make it absolutely clear that if the property is sold, the rights acquired are transferred with the sale, which would go a long way in allaying my constituents’ fears. Finally, where a company attempts to sell the freehold on common land, surely they must be able to prove that they own the freehold to the satisfaction of the Land Registry?

Let me now discuss the activities of United Utilities in my constituency. It is necessary to write to United Utilities at least three times in order to get an answer to the question one originally asked. This is only a small thing, but United Utilities promised that it would not change the way in which it charges park homes for land drainage; it made that promise three years ago, but this year it has introduced changes that mean that people in park homes in my constituency face an increase of between 85 and 183 per cent. in their charges.

I had to write three times to United Utilities to obtain an explanation. It told me that the changes would be revenue neutral. When I pressed it on that point, it said that, based on the 2003-04 figures, it was £25,000 worse off, but it had managed to rebalance the books.

When I asked it about the figures for the next three years, it said that it does not have those figures and that it would be too expensive manually to collect them. How on earth can United Utilities say that those changes, which are only small but which affect my constituents, are revenue neutral? That is an important question for the Government to answer, and it relates to my next point.

United Utilities has also decided to change the way in which it levies water charges on churches. Such charges are now based not on rateable value, but on the actual area covered by the church, including car parks and open spaces. Churches obtain their income from parishioners, and any money that United Utilities takes off them in increased charges for water will come out of the money that they spend on their communities, their churches, their parishioners and their work.

I have pressed United Utilities to say whether it will maintain the 90 per cent charitable discount for churches and places of worship, but it has not answered that question, which I have asked three times. Incidentally, I have also asked the Minister with responsibility for that matter that question, but he has not answered it, too. I need answers to all those questions from United Utilities.

I am rushing through the points that I want to raise. My next point is about NHS Logistics, which is based in four parts of the country. There is a depot in my constituency. The company supplies consumable goods to the National Health Service and, in September 2006, against my advice and that of other Members, the Government transferred NHS Logistics into the private sector. It was taken over by DHL and is now called NHS Supply Chain. At the time of the transfer, a written guarantee was given to NHS Logistics staff that they would be subject to “Agenda for Change”.

On 1 April, “Agenda for Change” introduced unsocial working hours payments for everybody in the NHS except those working at NHS Logistics—or NHS Supply Chain, as it is now called. I wrote to the relevant Minister and asked that the written guarantee remain in force and that the staff at NHS Supply Chain benefit from “Agenda for Change”. What I got back were a lot of conditions and arguments about why “Agenda for Change” could not be given all across the NHS. This is an important point. I seek clarification from the Government on whether the guarantee, given in September 2006, stands.

That guarantee also contained a promise that the trade union recognition and activities available to workers at NHS Logistics in the NHS would transfer to DHL and NHS Supply Chain. Only recently, a union official at DHL-NHS Supply Chain was suspended for trade union activities, and at a disciplinary hearing was given a six-month warning about them. That is not consistent with the terms and conditions guaranteed in writing when NHS Logistics moved to the private sector.

It was also promised that a service agreement should be written between the Department of Health and NHS Supply Chain about what trade union activities will go on; another issue is whether the agreement will be written and binding. The master service agreement has been written and I seek confirmation from the Government that that agreement, signed by DHL and the Department of Health, still stands and will be adhered to. I seek clarification on how the Government will scrutinise whether the agreement is kept.

The penultimate matter that I want to raise relates to the BBC and its trustees. The recently published BBC annual report shows that the BBC should pay tax on taxable benefits given to BBC non-executive directors.

The report also confirms that private health care for BBC senior managers is being paid for from the BBC licence fee. We are now told that there is an issue about where BBC trustees live — there is concern that they are too London-centric. I should like the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to consider that matter.

Finally, I pay tribute to a guy called Harry Pyle, a very old friend of mine. Harry died on 29 June this year, aged 85. He lived an extremely full life. He was a committed socialist and a Quaker. He was a power for good in Frodsham and worked extensively in Africa.

He did wonderful work with Oxfam and the Jubilee 2000 campaign. He belonged to the CND and campaigned against the war on Iraq. Despite my views on that, Harry was a great supporter. I want to put on the record my tribute to him and my thanks to him and his wife Rose for the work that they did in our community.