Adjournment (Christmas)

HC Deb 19 December 1994 vol 251 cc1413-55

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 20th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 10th January.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

4.34 pm

Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North)

I should like to detain the House for a few moments to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House some of the problems arising from the provisional revenue support grant for the county of Shropshire. The matter will be taken further forward on 3 January when a delegation from the county council, which I will accompany, will discuss the matter with a Minister from the Department of the Environment.

The provisional standard spending assessment and the level of rate capping that has been proposed is causing great anxiety in the county. I recently had the opportunity to meet senior officials of the county to discuss the matter, accompanied by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I have also been in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who has naturally taken a keen interest in developments which will as acutely affect his area of Shropshire as my own.

The Shropshire problem has a certain unique characteristic because it compounded by previous difficulties, in that between 1990 and 1991 and 1994 and 1995, Shropshire had the lowest increase of all counties in SSA and between 1991 and 1992 and 1994 and 1995 it had the next lowest capping increase. To that inherited pattern of difficulty has been added the current stringent proposal for the 1995–96 settlement.

The figures at the heart of the problem will be discussed in detail on 3 January and I do not wish to detain the House by arguing about them now. At heart, the issue is a proposed permitted spending increase of about £0.8 million or less than 0.5 per cent. when the county judges that to maintain its current spending would require an increase of £14.8 million. The shortfall of £14 million is equivalent to 5.8 per cent. of the budget.

Those are formidable figures and I would greatly appreciate it if my right hon. Friend would relay to the Department of the Environment my great anxiety that they represent a gap—as judged by the DOE and the county council—which cannot be reconciled, with any degree of equity, with the services provided in Shropshire.

Education will be first in line for cuts, of course, given the enormous difference in the budget, but it goes much further than the services covered by statutory obligation. Those where the county council spending is to some extent discretionary are the subject of the greatest anxiety, because the providers see themselves without any statutory protection for their work. That is particularly true of youth services, and officials in those areas have made their views known to me in the most compelling fashion at my weekend surgeries.

I appreciate that according to the conventions of the House contributions to the Adjournment debate are the more welcome—and, I hope, the more persuasive—the briefer they are. I see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House nodding in agreement, but I am not sure to which part of my proposition.

My speech is made ahead of the meeting on 3 January and I make an appeal that that occasion should not be used to rehearse the time-honoured positions of the combatants across the fiscal field, but to discuss the hard practicalities of public spending and the protective and legitimate role that public spending performs.

4.39 pm

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East)

Before we adjourn for the Christmas recess, I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to see issues that affect their constituencies resolved.

It is proposed substantially to increase tolls on the Severn bridge from 1 January next year. They will rise to £3.70 for a car, by 60p to £7.40 for small goods vehicles and by £1 to £11.10 for lorries. Those figures represent an increase of 177 per cent. since the bridge was privatised in 1992 and are a blatant example of the unacceptable face of privatisation.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

My hon. Friend may be surprised that I wish to intervene, but I am grateful to him for allowing me to do so. Is he aware that if the amendment in the next debate is not carried—it may not be called—this will be the last debate when Members will be able to raise matters on the motion for the Adjournment? Perhaps Members will bear that in mind. When they realise how important this debate is, they may wish to stay in the Chamber and ensure that such debates continue.

Mr. Hughes

I appreciate the relevance of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Severn bridge tolls are a scandal. The so-called Anglo-French consortium is simply bleeding Wales dry. South Wales still suffers from heavy unemployment. Black spots have been caused through closures and redundancies—Ebbw Vale, Merthyr and Cynon Valley spring to mind, but even Newport on the eastern seaboard with favourable geographical advantages is put at a distinct disadvantage by toll charges in its quest for new jobs.

Mr. Douglas French (Gloucester)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one reason why the tolls are so high is that they are charged only for traffic going in one direction?

Mr. Hughes

That is an irrelevant intervention. They must still be paid, whether they are paid only by vehicles coming into Wales, as is currently the case. It still amounts to doubling the charge.

In a recent survey of companies, Bristol came out as the most attractive area for new enterprises to relocate. Newport, just 20 miles further along the M4 motorway, came 28th. The toll charges are a barrier to industrial development. We have the labour, prime land and some kind of grants available, yet the Government have sold south Wales short. When will the Secretary of State for Wales speak up against the iniquitous toll system?

I received a letter dated 5 December from Mr. Sandy Blair, chief executive of Newport borough council, who wrote to me in his capacity as secretary of Gwent District Councils Association. He said that concern had been expressed about yet further increases in Severn bridge toll charges and asked me to make the strongest possible representations in Parliament regarding them. That is what I am trying to do this afternoon.

Mr. D.B.H. Colley, director-general of the Road Haulage Association, wrote to me on 23 November saying that road hauliers were incensed by the electronic tag system introduced in October 1993. He said that the Anglo-French Consortium had infringed the Severn Bridges Act 1992 by abolishing the discount of between 10 and 20 per cent. which applied to the pre-payment tickets. Under the tag scheme, savings will only accrue when more than 20 crossings per vehicle are made monthly by using a season pass. In addition, a refundable deposit of £30 is to be made for each tag, which is not transferable between vehicles. Mr. Colley tells me that the new system, too, was introduced without consultation and that the following major issues detrimentally affect road hauliers: first, a requirement for a £30 deposit on each tag; secondly, the need for each vehicle to have its own individual tag; thirdly, the replacement of the discounted ticket system by a non-discounted electronic tag, except where that is used as a season pass by the same vehicle.

By comparison, the Dartford River Crossing Company Ltd. has no tag charge. Its tags are interchangeable between vehicles of a similar classification and there is also a substantial discount of 7.5 per cent. for tag holders. Under the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988, tolls increased by less than 10 per cent., and since privatization in 1989 they have increased by approximately 33 per cent.When we compare those figures with the 177 per cent. increase in toll charges on the Severn bridge since privatisation in 1992, we must ask why there is so much discrimination against Wales and why the Secretary of State for Wales is not speaking up for Welsh economic interests.

The Severn bridge is the key access point linking England and Wales. It is only a short stretch of the M4 motorway. A constituent of mine in Redwick, Mr. Jerry Jones, a major road haulage contractor, pointed out that it is normally a criminal offence to stop on a motorway, and I understand the point that he made. There is now persistent protest in the Gloucester area about heavy lorries travelling through villages to avoid paying tolls. Public meetings have been held and civil disobedience has been openly advocated. What I fail to understand, however, is where the west country Conservative Members were when the pernicious Severn Bridges Bill was being pushed through Parliament two or three years ago. Labour Members opposed the legislation, but there are fewer than a handful of them in the west country—although I venture to suggest that after the next general election there are likely to be considerably more.

The regular defence of Severn bridge tolls is that the money is needed to build a second crossing, but that is just a load of eyewash when we consider the massive motoring taxation revenue that the Government receive. Some of that could surely be used to ease the burden of Severn bridge toll charges.

On 2 March this year I introduced a Bill to amend sections 9 and 10 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992. Had that proposal passed through Parliament, it would have had the effect of freezing tolls at the then existing level. The Government should now introduce such a measure.

Contracts that are negotiated can also be renegotiated, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when he was deputy Leader of the Opposition, said in south Wales at the time of the Monmouth by-election.

I warn the Government that the issue of Severn bridge tolls will not go away: it is a running sore, and privatisation of the Severn bridge was a madcap scheme that south Wales could well have done without.

4.49 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

The House might forgive me for not following the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) over the Severn bridge, but I should like to say how much I support the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). Staffordshire is in a similar position to Shropshire, and I wish my right hon. Friend every success on 3 January because, in battling for neglected shire counties, he will do a service to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I was tempted to speak about the apparent inadequacy of the inspection system in prisons and the apparent incompetence of the Director General of the Prison Service. Many similar subjects tempt me, but I have an opportunity to discuss once again a subject that I have brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House many times—the continually deteriorating position in the former Yugoslavia.

It is not to our credit as a House that we have devoted so little time to debating the most serious crisis in Europe since the second world war. I shall not weary the House by repeating arguments that I have previously advanced, save to say that I have, for more than three years, sought whenever possible to mention that issue, and I believe that, if the powers that be had heeded the call for effective action at the time that Vukovar was being razed to the ground and Dubrovnik bombarded, we might not have had to witness the appalling tragedy of Bosnia.

When the history of the past three years comes to be written, no one will emerge from it with any great credit. There has been an apparent unwillingness to grasp the seriousness of the situation. Most of all, there has been an inability to bring home to the Serbs the fact that territorial aggrandisement by conquest, and ethnic cleansing and all the barbarities and bestialities that go with that, are unacceptable in a civilised world. That they should be taking place at a time when we are about to commemorate 50 years since the end of the second world war is an indictment of us all.

I wholly exonerate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has been courtesy itself, and who has met me and my fellow officers of the all-party group on many occasions, from anything other than the most honourable of motives. However, it is a great pity that the western powers especially have not been able to demonstrate a greater coherence of resolve and a more forceful determination in the past three years.

It would be tragic for the present and an appalling portent for the future if a gang of hoodlums, under the direction of some of the most evil men who have strutted the political stage in modern times, were to be able to destroy the credibility of the United Nations and of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to pass on my words to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and to give them the following message.

Of course we recognise the conspicuous bravery and skill of British troops, and we are all proud of what they have achieved in appallingly difficult circumstances. Of course we do not call in question the motives or the honour of the people who lead our nation or the nations of the west. However, time is running out, arid it is essential that, now that even Milosevic, who began this appalling adventure three years ago, accepts the contact group's peace plan, every possible effort is made to ensure that the Bosnian Serbs are brought to heel. It would be tragic, disgraceful and disgusting if the Bosnian Serbs got away with their ill and brutally gotten gains. I do not think that there is a Member in the House who could not agree with that sentiment.

Time and again, people talk and the BBC talks—I have had occasion to write to Mr. Birt about it this week—about the Bosnian Muslims. The Bosnian Muslims are about as fanatical, as someone said on the radio this morning, as most people who identify their religion as "C of E" on their passports in this country. However, the legitimate Bosnian Government are not wholly Muslim. They are supported by Croats and by many Serbs. Not so long ago, the House received a deputation of Bosnian Serbs who support their legitimately recognised Government.

We are witnessing the extinction of a state that we willingly recognised, which has a seat at the United Nations, and which is therefore a member of the community of nations. The United Nations resolutions have been flagrantly flouted and violated time without number, first by the Serbs under Milosevic and the Bosnian Serbs, and more latterly almost exclusively by the Bosnian Serbs. It would be an appalling end to the year and beginning of a new one if they were now allowed to flout the Contact group's resolution.

I urge one or two courses of action. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will feel able to pass on my words to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

I have said many times that it would be sensible for this country to take an initiative by summoning a summit meeting of the leaders of the four nations principally involved—Britain, France and the United States, all key members of NATO and of the United Nations Security Council, and Russia, which has many problems of its own, as we are reminded daily, but which also has a significant part to play in that part of the world and which is, after all, a member of the contact group. The situation in the former Yugoslavia is so serious as to merit the calling of a special summit meeting, rather than the addition of the subject to the agenda of a prefixed summit.

It is important that the message should go out from any such meeting that, if there is any further violation of safe areas—what a hollow concept that has proved to be in the past few months—the full might of the United Nations agency NATO, which is the way in which NATO is acting at the moment, should be directed at those people who are violating. After all, the Bosnian Government have accepted the plan. I agree that they perhaps behaved rashly and foolishly in Bihac—although I understand why—a few weeks ago, and I would not exonerate anyone from the type of resolution that I now advocate. I should like a surrender of all heavy weapons into international control.

I would like to see the exercise of the United Nations mandate for a period of 12 months while the final details of the contact plan and the map are sorted out. I would like us to behave as an international community with the same resolution to any violation during that 12 months as we behaved toward Saddam Hussein. Would that we had finished him off, but that is another story.

The matter is extremely serious and time is short. As we move towards 1995, we are in a situation that is in many ways strangely reminiscent of 1914-15. Of course history does not repeat itself, but it teaches us lessons. We could be within not just months but weeks of a full-scale Balkan war, with all the horrors that that implies and would entail—a Balkan war that would have on one side Turkey and, on another side, Greece, two NATO members. There could be a Balkan war that could suck into the centre of Europe—the heart of Europe; a phrase that is often used in other contexts—Muslim fundamentalist fighters to fill any vacuum left by those who might withdraw.

My final word to my right hon. Friend is this: there should be an absolute declaration and a total commitment not to withdraw the forces that are there at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed commendable reluctance to contemplate such a course, and I applaud and admire him for that, but one must go even further than that. To withdraw, leaving our baggage, our weaponry and a vacuum would be the most ignominious of retreats and defeats for the principles of honesty and decency which have been so trampled upon so frequently over the past three years.

I am sorry to have to direct the attention of the House to such a sombre matter in a season of good will, but good will is a commodity that has been conspicuously lacking in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia. When we return to our families to enjoy, I hope, our Christmases and to prepare for a new year, we should spare a thought for the desolation in that land and for the ruined hopes and the shattered futures. We should recognise that, if we are going to commemorate the events of 1945 with any real credibility next year, we cannot have our commemorations accompanied by a pall of smoke over a country in Europe.

5.2 pm

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House, because, earlier this afternoon, the people of Newbury were betrayed once again. There is no other way of describing the appalling news that the A34 bypass around Newbury, or at best, has been postponed for at least a year or, at worst, will never be built. Yet again, Newbury is left suffering from the horrendous traffic problems which have been our lot for years and years.

Of course, I welcome the Government's announcement today that they have at last recognised that it is fatuous to go on building more new roads instead of investing in public transport and doing up the present structure, but, if ever there was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water, this must be that case.

Why have the Government failed to realise that there is all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, creating entirely new roads and thus encouraging entirely new journeys to be undertaken by car, and, on the other hand, removing already existing roads from the centre of some of Britain's loveliest old towns and villages? Interestingly, there are some signs that the Government have recognised that very point.

The Secretary of State, in his announcement today, said: Our priority now must be to make the most effective use of the existing network. But that is exactly what the Newbury by-pass is intended to do. The Secretary of State announced: Our priority is road-building to remove congestion and pollution blackspots. But that is exactly what the Newbury by-pass is intended to do. He announced that he wants to remove major bottlenecks because, as he says: They cause congestion and pollution, and damage the economic well-being of the country. They also cause frustration and diversion on to smaller more unsuitable roads. Of course he is right, and that is exactly why he should have authorised the earliest possible start to the building of the Newbury by-pass.

Newbury is being destroyed by traffic. The problem is that Newbury contains the one remaining section of the country's main north-south route between Southampton and Glasgow which, so far, has not been built up to well-nigh motorway standard. Because the rest of the route is so good, traffic is attracted to that route, even if drivers know that they are guaranteed to be held up in Newbury.

Delaying the Newbury by-pass will do nothing to reduce the traffic load on that road. Instead, it will simply mean more deaths on what is already a notoriously dangerous stretch, and many more children suffering from asthma, with all the attendant problems that that brings. Recent figures have shown that children living near the A34 suffer three times the level of noxious gases and other pollutants compared with children living further away. Businesses, too, will suffer as fewer shoppers are prepared to use Newbury because of the traffic queues.

It is not a new problem. It is not something for which the Government could use the excuse that they did not really know why the by-pass is necessary. It has been going on for years and years. Even if we discount the proposals that were made as far back as 1936 and again in 1965, even the modern proposals date from the early 1980s. Indeed, following traffic studies and public consultation over a number of years, the Department of Transport published its preferred route as early as 1985—almost 10 years ago.

It has now been shown that the A34 through Newbury, linking as it does the M3 at Winchester with the M40 north of Oxford, carries nearly double the percentage of heavy goods vehicles carried by the average trunk road in our country, and it carries them straight through the centre of Newbury. Traffic volumes in Newbury have already reached a level which, in the 1988 public inquiry, were not expected until 2009. Newbury has become a notorious bottleneck, with queues which can extend miles in each direction, and lorries and cars spewing out their fumes and noxious gases all over the gardens, schools and parks where our children play.

Local businesses, not to mention the emergency services, find that it can take an hour or more to travel just a mile or two across Newbury. That is just not acceptable. The environment in our lovely old market town is being wilfully destroyed.

Let me remind the Minister for Railways and Roads what he and his colleagues have said. In a letter to me of 27 October this year, the Minister said: I recently visited Newbury and saw for myself the pressing need for a bypass. The tail back of traffic was nearly back to the M4 … a bypass is needed to remove the noisy smelly traffic from the town. That is what the Minister himself said. The Highways Agency, in a letter dated 4 August, wrote: The need for an improvement of this stretch of the trunk road, which carries a high percentage of goods vehicles, was identified as long ago as 1971 and the requirement is now urgent. The Minister for Transport in London, in a letter as recently as 28 November, said: By-passes often bring considerable environmental benefits to the villages, towns and cities from where traffic is removed. The Highways Agency, again in a letter dated 28 October, wrote: Without this much needed new road, delay and congestion in Newbury will continue to increase. It is not just the destruction of Newbury which will make the people of Newbury so angry about this decision; it is also the way they have been promised again and again that the by-pass is on the point of being built. The Highways Agency wrote to me on 1 November to say: Your constituent will be pleased to know that tenders for the construction of the bypass have now been received and are currently being assessed. We expect to be in a position to appoint a contractor very shortly for a start of construction as soon as possible this winter. On 19 October, the Department of Transport confirmed to a local newspaper: There is no change in the road priority programme that was set out in April and Newbury is at the top and already has funding. It is going ahead as planned. During the by-election in May of last year, the Conservative party literature argued that local Conservatives, led by Judith Chaplin and Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, my predecessors, had already won the A34 by-pass, and that it would substantially reduce congestion through our towns and villages. It will be a major boost for West Berkshire businesses and local people alike. Building it is a great step toward solving traffic problems in Newbury. The Conservative Government has given the go-ahead and found the money. So much for the Conservative claim. As I said at the beginning, Newbury has been betrayed by this Government, according to whose arguments the A34 by-pass should have been given the highest priority. Instead, it has been cut out of the programme, overturning all the promises made by the Conservatives over many years.

In Newbury we have grown used to Conservatives who break promises, but seldom can so many promises made over so many years by so many different members of that party have been broken so suddenly and recklessly. The people of Newbury will be furious at this cynical betrayal of their hopes.

5.11 pm

Sir James Kilfedder (North Down)

A week ago I attended, as I do every year, the carol service arranged and presented by the pupils and staff of Clifton special school, in my constituency. Parents and relatives of pupils of different religions come together each year in one of the major churches of Bangor to celebrate the birth of Christ.

This year, the service was held in St. Comgall's church, and the Salvation Army junior band led the praise. It was a touching and emotional event, because the pupils at the school, all of whom participated in the service, either have profound and multiple learning difficulties or exhibit challenging behaviour. I pay tribute to the principal and staff of the school, who are completely dedicated to their pupils, some of whom suffer from grave mental and physical handicaps.

I am also deeply affected by the manifest dedication of the parents, who shower their love, time and efforts on their handicapped children. For me, this annual carol service, organised by Clifton special school, signals the start of the Christmas season. For that season, if it is about anything, is about the misfortunes of others and about giving without restraint.

It would be natural to assume in such poignant and dire circumstances that every help would be given to the school and parents and especially to the boys and girls. Unfortunately, it is not. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find places for the school's leavers in training and resource centres or in intensive support units. Failure to find a place for a student, or finding one only at the last moment, causes unnecessary and terrible stress for the school and the parents. Yet it seems that this intolerable situation is set to worsen.

The school received a letter in October from the North Down and Ards community trust. In it the manager apologised and assured the principal of the school that he had done everything possible to keep his line management informed of the shortages with regard to day care places, particularly the Intensive Support Unit. In a letter sent recently by the principal of the special school, Mrs. Ray Cunningham, to the chief executive of the health and care centre, Newtonards, she informed him that the officer in charge of the Ards training and resources centre had confirmed that no place was available in an intensive support unit for an 18 year-old pupil who was due to leave the school. She stated: Needless to say, both the parents and members of staff at Clifton special school were devastated at this news, particularly as the boy has very special needs. She added: It is essential that a place be available for him as soon as he leaves the school. I believe that, as a result of all the pressure that that lady brought to bear, and after lengthy deliberation, a temporary place will be found for the boy. That is all wholly unacceptable. The principal of the school has told me that social services have been given, by the school, a minimum five-year projected list of needs, together with a simple profile of each student, including the dates when each boy or girl will be leaving the school. Management can thus anticipate the number of places required and know whether any special needs attach to each place. The principal of the school has emphasised that the situation is so serious that all plans for induction courses for pupils have had to be abandoned, as the school has not been guaranteed places early enough to set such courses in motion.

Apparently the board has in mind a project that entails building another intensive support unit in the Bangor area. I say "in mind" because I have had no assurance when or even if it will be built. The places are desperately needed now, even if it is to be built in a year or two.

All decent people will be scandalised by what is going on. They will feel that the parents of children with special needs or with mental or physical handicaps should be given special attention by those responsible for their children's further care. I therefore demand that the Government intervene to ensure that the trust provides the places that are vital for these students and for their loving, hard-pressed parents.

5.17 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I believe that the House should not adjourn for the Christmas recess until we have had the opportunity to discuss county hall on the other side of the river. It was built as a home for the London county council and paid for by Londoners. It was built for the local and strategic governance of London. Following the abolition of the Greater London Council in 1986—an act that still smacks far more of political spite and personal malice on the part of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, than of a respect for the needs and wishes of Londoners—county hall was used by a number of bodies, including the Inner London education authority. On the abolition of ILEA in 1990, county hall became empty, and so it has remained ever since.

What worries me is how the building has become the centre of what one can only describe as a fiasco bordering on the scandalous. As I have suggested in the House before, the scandal is now moving in the direction of some form of criminal conspiracy.

The facts are fairly straightforward. In 1989, there was a bid from a consortium—the County Hall Development Group—for the site, of around £200 million. It was., of course, made to the London residuary body, the body set up by the Government to administer the disposal of the assets of the Greater London council and to disperse the receipts across the London boroughs. That deal hit the deck, as one suspected that it would because of the dive in the property market in London and around the world. Because it was impossible to renegotiate the terms of the original deal, the £20 million deposit, which was put up as a bond by the development group, was forfeited.

We then move on to another proposal. One of the partners was the Shiryama hotel group from Japan, the owner being Mr. Takashi Shiryama, who made a bid for a 600-bedroom hotel at county hall. That bid, for £60 million I understand, was accepted by the LRB and the Government. At that point, a number of hon. Members, on a cross-party basis, went to see the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Home Secretary—the man with such a wondrous record in terms of carrying out his departmental responsibilities—and suggested that the bid from the London School of Economics would be far more appropriate to county hall, given its previous use and, indeed, to the wishes of Londoners as a whole. It seemed far more appropriate that one of the great international seats of learning should sit in county hall than some second-rate Japanese hotel group.

The then Environment Secretary, now the Home Secretary, turned it down. I think that that was a mistake. I warned him at the time that he could, if it went wrong, end up with the equivalent of another Battersea power station, but this time right opposite the Houses of Parliament. That is the way in which we still seem to be going. The development came from an organisation with big ideas and, it turns out, rather small pockets.

It is scandalous—I know that that word has been used a number of times this evening, and I make no apology for using it again—that county hall still remains empty. The 600-bedroom hotel proposal has suddenly been dropped by the Shiryama group. It is now talking about an Asia-Pacific centre and an aquarium. It has not even sought a change of planning use. What sort of fiasco is taking place just a few yards across the river opposite the Houses of Parliament? It is amazing that Ministers should allow that to happen. I do not believe that Ministers or the LRB ever looked carefully at the proposal of the Shiryama organisation, because ideology, as ever, was ruling the roost.

The Secretary of State just wanted to get rid of county hall. His attitude was, "Just get it away from me. I don't care what it is, as long as it has nothing to do with the public sector. Oh, a Japanese hotel group? Okay, give it to them. I don't care whether it has any money. Of course we have never heard of these people. Who cares? Get rid of it."

Because that particular proposal was so badly examined by the LRB and the Government, a whole series of bizarre events is taking place over at county hall. Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic, which was inveigled into the group, now proposes to take legal action against Shiryama because he has suddenly been dumped in mid-course. He does not want to get involved in an Asia-Pacific trade centre and aquarium. He has enough problems as it is. He wanted to be involved with a hotel.

We have a ridiculous situation: Mr. Takashi Shiryama's London representative is apparently called Mr. Makota Okamoto, but every time that someone gets hold of him and asks questions, he goes under another name. He has been called Mr. Toyota, when one gets in touch with him, and Mr. Honda. God knows what other Japanese motor car he will be named after next.

Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even from his point of view as a member of the Labour party, it is an offence against the spirit of the idea of civic conservatism that an important public building in an important public location should have been treated in that fashion, and that it is highly desirable that the Government think again and find a way in which to ensure that that important public building be given an important public civic use?

Mr. Banks

I could not agree more. Indeed, when we went to see the then Secretary of State for the Environment, I made it quite clear. Everyone knows my political prejudices in respect of the abolition of the GLC and the use of county hall. I said to the then Secretary of State, "Look. I am prepared to give up the campaign, as it were, provided you are prepared to let county hall be used for something that conforms with the dignity of that building, and the bid from the LSE seems to be the most appropriate." It was an all-party bid and the offer still remains on the table. I suspect that that bid can be revived now.

I do not believe, as I warned the then Secretary of State for the Environment, that the proposal from Shiryama will come through to a conclusion. I do not believe that the Shiryama group ever had the funds in this country to carry out its proposed development of county hall. Indeed, I say that it was an entirely inappropriate application in the first place.

I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I do not wish to delay the House. May I leave a series of questions with the Leader of the House for passing on? I am concerned about the terms of the sale struck between Shiryama and the LRB. I understand that £50 million has so far been paid. I am still trying to find out whether that sum included any of the £20 million deposit, which, as I mentioned earlier, was forfeited from the 1989 consortium bid by the county hall development group. That is very important, as not all of it was Shiryama's money.

Secondly, since the 999-year lease—the terms of the sale—was for £60 million, when will the balance of £10 million, which has been deferred, be paid? Thirdly, what is the total development cost of the 600-bedroom hotel? As I have said, I do not believe that Shiryama ever had the resources to complete the development. Fourthly, has there been any application for a change of planning consent? Lastly, what examination did the Government or the LRB make of the original Shiryama proposal?

It is a scandalous situation. It is still not too late for us to rectify it.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the possibility of a first-class university occupying that building would be a fitting use for it, as our university education is one of the very best areas of British activity today and is much used by foreigners?

Mr. Banks

Again, I could not agree more. All that I would say to the hon. Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), who have made such positive interventions, is: please do not direct those points at me; direct them to Ministers, because they are the people who need to be persuaded. We will give whatever support we are able to give and are asked to give in terms of the LSE getting hold of county hall, because that proposal seems to meet with the agreement and consent of both sides of the House.

Even at this late stage, I say to the Government: for heaven's sake do not make the terrible error of allowing this half-baked proposal to dribble gradually towards some totally unsatisfactory conclusion, leaving county hall resembling the terrible sight of that other wonderful building a bit further down the river—Battersea power station.

5.28 pm

Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)

I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not worry too much if I do not follow on from that point.

I watched with interest the arrival this afternoon of the new hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson). He has a good chance of going into the Guinness book of records for having said more during his victory speech after his election than he did during the whole of the election campaign. He held no public meetings during the campaign and, I think, refused every opportunity to debate with his opponents. I see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who was one of his minders, is in his place. I hope that we shall get a response from him when he winds up.

I want to talk about affordable housing, but before I do so I should like to say one thing about my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I agree entirely with his decision not to give parole to Myra Hindley. I was horrified when I read in The Sunday Times yesterday the in-depth interview that she gave. I find it difficult to understand how somebody like Myra Hindley can have such an in-depth interview with a journalist when the prison governor of Cookham Wood claimed that she played no part in arranging the interview.

There is a great campaign by the friends of Hindley to push for her to be granted parole. From what I have read, accordingly to Hindley all the blame attaches to Ian Brady and that her crime was that she lured the children: she lured them to their deaths, and I do not think that she has shown much remorse.

It is almost 30 years since those terrible crimes were committed, yet they are still fresh in the memories of many people. At least five children were sexually abused and then murdered. Anyone who could commit such a crime must be either mad or evil, or both. Myra Hindley must recognise that there can be no hiding place for her. If she were paroled, she could have plastic surgery, dye her hair, move to a part of the country or another country where she would not be known, but somebody, somewhere, would discover that she was there. We have only to hear what is being said by the relatives of the children who were murdered to realise that the only safe place for Hindley is in prison—for the good of everybody.

If this country cannot have capital punishment for the particularly vicious and evil crimes that Hindley committed, a life sentence must mean a life sentence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right in what he said, and I believe that he has the support of the overwhelming majority of people in this country.

I want now to raise the question of affordable housing—

Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)

Although I am interested in hearing what my hon. Friend has to say about affordable housing, may I first ask whether he agrees that it is right that the Home Secretary should take responsibility for sentencing matters? Is it not offensive to people both in the House and outside that the European Court of Human Rights should intervene to prevent the Home Secretary from making decisions about parole or incarceration?

Sir Fergus Montgomery

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely.

I have raised the issue of affordable housing previously, but I do not seem to have made any impact on the Department of the Environment or the Treasury—which, after all, holds the purse strings. Nevertheless, I persevere.

I declare an interest, as my wife is chairman of a housing association and also a member of the Housing Corporation. We have come to accept that housing associations are now the main providers of new rented accommodation. Much as I believe in home ownership, there will always be a need for rented housing. I am worried because the housing association grant rate has fallen dramatically. That leads to a growth in benefit dependency and work disincentive. If the grants are lower, the rents must be higher. People then fall into the poverty trap and find that they are better off under the benefit system than by taking a lower-paid job. I cannot see any sense in perpetuating that sort of situation.

As I said, I have raised the issue before, but to no avail. The position is worsening and the recent Budget did not make matters any better—in fact, it made them worse. There has been a huge cut in the new social housing capital programme for 1995-96. It is the second year running that it has been cut. I am saddened because the funding of social housing is one of the Government's major social policy success stories. Since 1988, more than 250,000 homes have been provided under the system. It has proved wonderful value for money, because 50 per cent. more homes have been provided for every £1 of taxpayers' money than was the case in 1988.

We must remember that more than £5 billion of unguaranteed private sector funds have been injected into social housing. Also, the bad debt record of housing associations is far better than any other part of the property sector. The success of housing associations must be seen in the context of a change in attitude among people who need to find somewhere to live and who, initially, were attracted to owner-occupation. They see people in negative equity, which is a terrible problem for many people. At one time, if someone bought a house the chances were that its value would rocket. Not any more—house prices today are not rising. Some people have difficulty in affording the deposit; others worry about long-term job security.

All those factors must be taken into account and it is against that background that I cannot understand why the Government chose to single out the new social housing for rent programme for some of the biggest cuts of any expenditure programme. Just before the April 1993 Budget, I believed that taxpayers' investment in new social housing would be £1,800 for the year 1995-96. In fact, the figure is only £1,200 million, a shortfall of £600 million. If we add to that the private finance going into the programme, it makes a cut of more than £1 billion a year. That is a serious situation. In allocations for new homes for rent, the year-on-year reduction will be an unbelievable 59 per cent.

I think that we owe an explanation to all those people whose problem is that they cannot afford to buy their own homes and need to live in rented accommodation. I need an explanation of why there was a doubling in investment in social housing in the three years up to 1992-93, followed by a halving in the three years up to 1995-96. How does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on anyone else expect any housing association to plan in such a climate?

Of course I appreciate that public expenditure must be contained. All Conservative Members accept that. What I fail to understand is why the social housing budget should have been cut so drastically. I should like answers to certain questions. Where is the evidence to support the huge cuts in new social housing provision for 1995-96? Why have Ministers shifted the goalposts by referring to lettings and not to homes? The manifesto commitment specifically referred to homes. Why did Ministers increase the share for the much smaller social housing programme for shared ownership? I should have thought that the emphasis would be on trying to help those people who have no choice other than to rent.

I shall repeat what I have said on previous occasions—that I get depressed when I see people sleeping rough in certain parts of London. Of course I know that there are reasons for that: young people today tend to leave home much earlier and the magnet of the big city attracts them, irrespective of the consequences; the number of divorces has increased enormously, so that where previously one home was sufficient for two people, after a divorce two homes are needed; and, of course, we must accept that for some people it is the sort of life that they choose for themselves.

I feel sorry for the genuine homeless who have nowhere else to go. I realise that homelessness is happening not just in this country, but throughout the world, but when we see it in this country it should strike at people's social conscience. If there were more affordable housing for rent, that would help in the fight against homelessness. Therefore, I hope that before we rise for the Christmas recess my right hon. Friend can give me some replies to the questions that I have posed today.

5.38 pm

Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen)

It is a measure of how much the Dudley, West by-election result has affected the Conservative party that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) felt the need to attack a new hon. Member who has not even made his maiden speech. It is so unlike the hon. Gentleman to make such an attack that I was very surprised.

I was also surprised that he did not find time to mention the performance of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in dealing with David Dimbleby on the "Newsnight" programme when he was asked what Labour's policies were. When my hon. Friend catalogued the policies that had been stated during the general election, Mr. Dimbleby had to beat a quick retreat. My hon. Friend fairly sorted out the BBC on that occasion.

I want to devote most of my speech to the flooding in my constituency 10 days ago, which caused quite a lot of damage. Unfortunately, although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland specifically said in the Scottish Grand Committee that my constituency had been badly affected, I did not have the chance to question him.

More than 140 people had to be evacuated from their homes in the Farme Cross area of Rutherglen. Baronald street was particularly badly affected: dinghies had to be used to transfer householders to safe quarters. Even now, eight days later, the Dalmarnock road bridge is still unusable, and we do not when it will be usable again. At this stage no one is prepared to estimate the cost of the damage, for which Strathclyde regional council will be responsible.

In the east Greenlees area of Cambuslang, a large estate was cut off from its entrance road because of flooding—a problem which recurs every time the area is flooded. In the Bankhead ward of my constituency the Quigleys estate, which has a burn running through it—what the English would describe as a large stream—is subject to flooding at times of heavy rainfall; the burn overflowed during last week's flooding, and it was only thanks to the valiant efforts of volunteers on the estate that the overflow did not reach the houses.

Tenants and home owners living on that estate have told me that when they telephoned Glasgow district council to ask for assistance they were asked whether they were tenants or whether they had bought their council houses. I do not consider that relevant, and I shall pursue the matter. Fortunately my brother Eddie, who takes a good deal of case work from that ward, will be able to discuss the response to the flooding with the authorities involved.

Other parts of Rutherglen are also susceptible to flooding. At Burnhill in the west end of Rutherglen, for instance, part of the local burn has been culverted, but other parts have not and can flood at any time.

At last week's meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary of State was asked how much support the Government would give Strathclyde regional council so that it could cope with the disaster. The Bellwin formula was cited; in effect, Strathclyde must spend £3.5 million before the system is triggered, and even then it will not be compensated for the full amount that it spends. It is all down to Government judgment. I do not consider that an adequate response.

In response to pressure from Scottish Members, the Secretary of State for Social Security has allocated £120,000 to some local Benefits Agency offices to help people whose houses have been flooded. Some of the money is supposed to take the form of loans, and that too is unsatisfactory. The Government have been reluctant to advance money to help people whose homes have been horrendously affected.

For various reasons, many people who have been forced out of their homes do not have adequate home insurance. The Government may say that that is their own affair, but the insurance premium tax that the Government have imposed helps to dissuade people from insuring themselves against disasters of this kind. The Government's response has not been good enough, in my constituency or in Scotland as a whole.

I am not a Scottish nationalist by any means; I believe that the United Kingdom constitutes the best way of dealing with the needs of all four home countries, and I strongly support the Union. Nevertheless—I know that I risk upsetting some hon. Members by saying this—I am struck by the disparity between the treatment of Scotland and that of England in cases such as this. If a similar disaster had occurred in the south-east of England, the media would have been full of Ministers dashing forward to help—especially in Conservative-controlled areas.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Outside London.

Mr. McAvoy

Outside London, as my hon. Friend says.

The continuing bias against Scotland will only help the Scottish nationalists and others like them who are trying to drive a wedge between the two sides of the Union. I hope that Conservative Members will eventually realise that.

The Government have told Strathclyde regional council—the main council trying to deal with the disaster—that there are to be cuts in grant aid. That will mean massive cuts in council services, as well as an estimated council tax rise of between 20 and 25 per cent. The Government maintain that this is a case of crying wolf, but I know that many Conservative councils in both England and Scotland are also affected.

It is disgraceful that the Government should cut the grant of councils such as Strathclyde, which is dealing admirably with a national disaster. Many local people are also trying to alleviate the problems, and I am especially proud of the way in which Strathclyde regional councillors Eddie Thompson and Hugh McKenna have responded to the needs of their wards, and made sure that the council as a whole responds reasonably.

Strathclyde's problems have been compounded by Sunday night's fire at Trinity high school, which has imposed further pressure on the council's budget. Within a couple of weeks Strathclyde has experienced the flood and the fire, and been told by the Government that its grant will be cut. That does not constitute responsible government. Strathclyde's parliamentary Labour group is currently considering the council's request for a parliamentary delegation to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to review his attitude to the support of Scottish local authorities, particularly Strathclyde.

I am sorry to be sombre, especially at Christmas, but I am thinking of my constituents. More than 140 are staying in temporary accommodation. They do not know where the insurance money will come from—if, indeed, they are insured—and they do not know where their Christmas presents are, many of which will have been damaged in the floods.

5.47 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Last Saturday, after the one o'clock news on the BBC, Northern Ireland listeners were regaled by Albert Reynolds, the former Prime Minister of the Irish republic, telling them what the framework document negotiations were about and describing the amount of agreement already reached between himself and the British Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have repeatedly told the House and the people of Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland's position within the Union cannot be changed until a majority of the people ask for a change, and that no such majority exists now or can be foreseen in the near future. Now Mr. Reynolds asserts that the two Acts which in law constitute the title deeds of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom—the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973—have both been renegotiated in the talks, and that changes in them will be made in the House of Commons. Mr. Reynolds went on to reinforce his remarks, stating that that was the position and the agreement at the framework document discussions before he was removed from office.

Two parties were at those talks—Mr. Reynolds and the Prime Minister. Mr. Reynolds has declared that the title deeds of the Union are to be tampered with and, what is more, that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution will not now be deleted: article 2 will stay in its place and only a slight change will be made to article 3. Surely the time has come for the Prime Minister to make a clear statement in reply to Mr. Reynolds' assertions. The statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland satisfied no one but is causing ever more outrage among Ulster people. He claims that confidentiality forbids him to reply, but the confidentiality has been shattered completely by Mr. Reynolds. It is surely the duty of the Prime Minister to put the record straight publicly.

The people of Northern Ireland must hear the Prime Minister's answer to certain questions. Are the title deeds of Northern Ireland's place in the Union—the 1920 Act and the 1973 Act—on the table, as Mr. Reynolds asserts? Have those legal documents been placed on a par with articles 2 and 3—which make criminal, illegal and immoral claims to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland—as Mr. Reynolds asserts?

Has the Prime Minister made a promise to Mr. Reynolds that he will advise the House of Commons to change both those Acts? Has he given up the demand that he said he would make, that articles 2 and 3 must go? According to Mr. Reynolds, that would be unfair. I am not passing judgment: I am asking the Prime Minister to answer those vital questions. The majority of the people of Northern Ireland have a right to an answer to now.

The shadow of the still armed IRA murder thugs continues to darken the scene in Northern Ireland. Over the weekend, they beat a man—one of their own co-religionists—almost to death. They broke both his arms and his legs and many other bones in his body. He now lies in an intensive care ward in the local hospital. Another man was similarly beaten up. In Enniskillen today they planted a semtex bomb, but fortunately it was dealt with before it exploded. The security forces have discovered that both the detonator and the semtex were of IRA origin.

With that dark backcloth, it is imperative that the Prime Minister should publicly reply to Albert Reynolds. If he does not respond, the people of Northern Ireland can conclude only that Mr. Reynolds was speaking the truth and that the Union is very much in danger because its title deeds are being tampered with by people who, by fair means or foul, have declared that Northern Ireland must be prised out of the United Kingdom, annexed to the Irish Republic and put under Dublin rule. I say to the Prime Minister: respond immediately and answer those questions urgently.

5.53 pm

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

All hon. Members receive in their post reports from national and local housing associations. All tell the same story: the continuing problems of many people seeking to find satisfactory housing and at a rent that they can afford. As we all know, the number of low-cost housing developments being built or converted throughout the country is inadequate. The recent Budget failed to give any hope either to the building industry or to people seeking somewhere to live. I wish to make my comments against that background.

In July this year, the Latham report was published. It was named after a widely respected former hon. Member, Sir Michael Latham. He was asked to consider what were and are major problems in the building industry. He was asked to do so not by the building and construction industry, although it fully supported his inquiry, but by the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment. One can expect the Government, therefore, to support the proposals in the Latham report.

My reason for taking part in the debate is to ask when the Government will respond to the proposals that Sir Michael made in the report. The report shows the size and involvement of the building and construction industry in the economy of this country. Well over 200,000 companies operate in either building or construction. Well over 750,000 people from the industry are employed in the work force. When the industry starts to take off again, I am sure that many more people who worked in it previously but who lost their jobs in recent years will return to it. The industry produces about 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross national product. Those facts are an indication of the industry's important and valuable role.

Sadly, in recent years thousands of small and large companies have gone into liquidation. As all the published reports into the reasons for that have clearly shown, one of the major problems has been the late payment or, indeed, non-payment of contracts. That leads to what is called the domino effect. One party to a contract becomes insolvent, which causes the insolvencies of other groups in the building industry. Money is lost, debts are not paid and jobs are lost.

The Latham committee considered the matter. The main cause of the problem has undoubtedly been the increasing number of disputes between clients—the main contractors and subcontractors. Disputes over contracts have caused delays in work and in payments for work that has been completed. That has done nothing to stop the increasing cost of building and construction work. It can and does lead to less investment in the industry. The amount of training undertaken by companies has fallen significantly in recent years because of those problems. That is the background to the position today and the industry has been in that position for some considerable time.

The Latham committee considered that background. All people agree that its report was one of the most detailed studies of the building and construction industry undertaken for many years. Sir Michael Latham's report made some 30 recommendations for improvements across the structure of the industry which would lead to a construction contracts Act. Everyone in the industry agrees that such an Act would provide greater certainty of cash flow and greater payment security.

One of the most important recommendations was that there should be an adjudication procedure to examine disputes between clients and companies. The building and construction industry has great scope for disputes over payments and, sadly, such disputes often arise. They can centre on the standard of work done or on delays in completion. That in turn gives rise to the domino effect I mentioned, whereby major companies tell smaller companies and subcontractors that they—the smaller companies—will get paid when they—the major companies—have been paid.

When the Latham report was published in July it was greatly welcomed by everyone in the industry. As I said, it calls for legislation in the form of a construction contracts Act. That would mean the setting up of secure trust funds to avoid the problems of non-payment. Once a contract with payment provision had been entered into it could not be invalidated by actions taken by individuals in the industry who do not want to pay and who thus create all manner of problems for others.

My reason for mentioning the report is to emphasise its importance to a major sector of the British economy. The report cannot be allowed to gather dust while someone somewhere in some Government office decides what the next step should be. I was privileged to attend a meeting that Sir Michael addressed in September. He called clearly for positive Government action on his report's proposals. I again remind the Leader of the House that the Latham Committee was set up by the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Everyone in the industry supports Sir Michael's proposals and his call for legislation. I am sure that all hon. Members recognise the importance of an industry which builds homes and creates employment and that they will be looking to the Government for a clear statement of their thinking on the Latham report. The report was published last July and we should like to know what discussions are now taking place with representatives of the industry. I have already pointed out that more than 200,000 companies are involved in the industry and employ more than 750,000 people.

I realise that the Leader of the House is not responsible for the Department of the Environment, but I know from previous experience of Adjournment debates that he is courteous enough always to forward to the relevant Department any comments made by me or any other hon. Member. In view of the fact that many people are interested in this subject, may I ask the Leader of the House when he thinks that the Government will introduce legislation based on the report of the Latham committee?

6.4 pm

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recall that during business questions on Thursday I suggested to him that we should have a debate on the future of the railway manufacturing industry. There is to be an Adjournment debate on this subject tomorrow, but the matter that I want to raise and to which I alluded in my question on Thursday specifically concerns the future of the Asea Brown Boveri carriage works in York.

The carriage works is not situated in my constituency, although many of my constituents work there. In fairness to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), I must point out that he and I have together raised this matter with Ministers many times, and the position is now extremely serious. It requires action by Ministers during the Christmas recess, which is why it is especially relevant to raise it now, before the House adjourns.

Earlier today, in Transport Questions, several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who has remained in his place all afternoon, mentioned the improved service on Network SouthEast since the introduction of the Networker 465 trains which are manufactured at the ABB carriage works.

The third tranche of 465s is currently under construction, and that follows ABB's success in winning the competition for £150 million leasing of new rolling stock for British Rail which was awarded in 1993. The contract for the third tranche provided an option for British Rail to take up a fourth tranche. It is especially interesting that the idea of the fourth tranche being met through the option was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), when he was Minister for Public Transport, at a meeting of the York Railway Forum, which I chair jointly with the hon. Member for York.

The point is that the £150 million leasing order, which involved public funds, could not be repeated, or could not be guaranteed to be repeated in future years, but that any further financing of Networker trains would in all probability have to be accomplished through the private finance initiative. With that encouragement, ABI3 put in an offer to British Rail in June or July in relation to the option. The tragedy is that, some six months later, British Rail has not approached my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, or his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, with any firm proposal.

I must point out to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, unless a firm proposal is put to the Secretary of State and advanced sufficiently for British Rail to signify its intention to take up the option by 15 January, the option will be lost. That is why it is urgent that the House consider the matter now.

There is no question in my mind but that British Rail has been dragging its feet. What has caused the greatest concern to many people in the York area, and especially to the hon. Member for York and me, the ABB work force and the York area economic development unit which has been monitoring the proceedings, is that it now seems that British Rail could be considering another tendering process and not exercising the option put into the contract for the third tranche.

That would be tragic news for the ABB work force in York, because it would inevitably mean a six-month tendering process and readvertising on a European basis through the Official Journal of the European Communities. In addition, ABB would not be able to offer the savings on the fourth tranche that it is able to offer now under the option arrangements.

The ABB works in York is the only carriage works in the United Kingdom that manufactures a complete carriage. That may have something to do with the fact that ABB recently lost the contract for the Northern line trains to GEC, which will import material from Spain. I cannot claim to be an expert on the matter, but I believe that a carriage works that manufactures a complete train is rather like a shipyard, although the process is shorter. Certain parts of the work take place in March or April, and the completed train is not ready until October or November.

The third tranche of 465 Networker trains is likely to be delivered by October next year so from March or April onwards, ABB will have no option but to lay off staff, unless it is certain that it will get the fourth tranche, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering always said was in the mind of the Department of Transport.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and other south-east Members agree that there are still too many old trains running on Network SouthEast. There is undoubtedly a need for further 465 orders. It is clear—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

Dangerous trains.

Mr. Greenway

As the hon. Gentleman says, there are dangerous trains; it is interesting that he mentions that. There was a question earlier today about the dreadful accident at Cowden. I understand that one of the problems with the old-style trains, which were built 25 or 30 years ago, is that the carriage is just bolted on to a platform on wheels. If the train hits an immovable object or a train coming in the other direction, the carriage completely shears off the base.

The 465 train is a complete-build body and does not have that weakness. With the new trains, passengers on Network SouthEast would be considerably more comfortable. They would be likely to be attracted back to travel on the railways after the dreadful signalmen's strike last year, when many of them found other ways to get to work. They would also be considerably safer on their journey.

This is a complex matter, which involves negotiations and delicate commercial considerations. It must be clear, however, that, unless the option is exercised, there is every likelihood that the ABB carriage works will close, because there simply will not be any work for the work force to do. I regard that as the most perverse crime that the Government could commit on the people of the York area.

Until I heard one of the answers in Transport Questions today, I did not know that this was the first year since 1948 that British Rail had not ordered any rolling stock. I fully support the privatisation process, because I believe that the lack of investment is due to a lack of money. From what has happened with the airlines or with coaches, it is clear that the private sector is likely to produce considerably more investment. We were told during the privatisation process, however, that there would be no hiatus in investment. All the present investment seems to be directed towards infrastructure and rail track.

I am not suggesting to the Leader of the House that the Government should consider the only option to be to persuade the Chancellor to release some of the money that may well be saved on the road-building programme after what we have heard today, and to spend it on public transport. I do not suggest that the fourth tranche should be a publicly funded proposal.

What I am saying to my right hon. Friend is that ABB has done all that Ministers suggested it should. There is a PFI scheme for funding the fourth tranche of Networker trains. We should encourage British Rail and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to make it clear that the option must be exercised by 15 January—or at least the intention to exercise it should be announced—so that we can reassure the ABB work force and secure here in the United Kingdom a carriage works that is capable of building all the new trains that a privatised railway will require.

From what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said earlier, it seems that, if we agree with all the Jopling proposals, there may be no more three-hour debates on the Christmas Adjournment. That would be a great pity. I often think that these are the best three hours in the entire Session. An amendment has been tabled on the matter, and I hope that it will be selected, because I want to vote for it.

I do not relish the thought that if, however, we have a debate on the Christmas Adjournment next year—I have made it a habit to speak in such debates during my seven or eight years in this place—I shall have to remind the House of what I have said this evening about the future of the ABB carriage works.

6.15 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I hope that this is not the last time that we have a debate on the Christmas Adjournment. It is an important opportunity for hon. Members to raise particular concerns. If the Leader of the House ever returns, he may make a note of those concerns—

Mr. Mackinlay

There is no Minister here.

Mr. Corbyn

The right hon. Gentleman's oppo, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), is here as his deputy; it is all right. He has got his pen out and he is writing things down. As long as he ensures that he writes it all down and sends it to the Minister concerned, I am quite happy.

I want to raise a number of matters concerning poverty and health in London. Christmas is often a time of deep conservatism and synthetic concern for many outside. Everyone else retreats to the bosom of the family and forgets about those outside who are begging, sleeping rough, living desperately overcrowded lives in other people's homes or waiting for hospital operations and surgery. The position of health care and poverty in London is desperate and complex. The number of people sleeping on the streets is still going up and hostel accommodation is no substitute for proper housing for people who desperately need it.

Many factors affect the health of people in London. Ill health is in part due to poverty, in part due to air pollution, in part due to stress and in part due to unemployment; there is a whole series of factors. We live in a country that still claims to have a national health service that is universal and free at the point of use. Opposition Members cherish that deeply and I look forward to the day when a Labour Government are elected who can ensure that that principle is carried through in all circumstances.

In that setting, I refer with real anger to a copy of a circular that I have just been given. It is from the surgical directorate of Whittington hospital in my constituency. It is dated 5 December and has been sent to all consultant surgeons and anaesthetists. It says: The Executive Management Group have directed us to curtail all non-urgent elective surgery with immediate effect. I have instructed Bed Bureau to cancel all non-urgent patients with the following exceptions: Day Cases, ECRs, GP Fund Holder's Patients, 18 month plus waiters … and Waiting List Initiative Patients. Those patients are mainly from other boroughs. The circular continues: Please note that 'Urgent' should be taken to mean where there is a real risk to life, or real probability of serious deterioration, if an operation is not performed before April 1995. Taken at face value, the circular says that those who think that they have a right to health care in my borough or in Camden—the area covered by Camden and Islington health authority—have no access to anything other than emergency treatment for a life-threatening condition before April 1995. That is happening at the same time as wards are being closed, beds are unused and staff have nothing to do in some hospitals. It is nonsense. It is a travesty of justice and many people are in serious pain while waiting for a hospital bed to be made available for them.

I believe that that circular is a direct consequence of the operation of the internal market in the national health service. It is also flies in the face of all the assurances that my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and I have been given at numerous meetings, that there was to be no prejudice in favour of patients of fundholding GPs. Yet the circular says that if one happens to be a patient of a fundholding GP, one is okay and can get treatment. If one is not a patient of a fundholding GP—43 out of 44 GPs in my constituency are not fundholders—one has to wait until April next year before one can get an appointment.

I have also read very carefully the finance report given at the most recent full meeting of Camden and Islington health authority. Very strange language is used in those reports. They talk of over-activity in the hospitals—over-activity in Whittington hospital, which, apparently, is working a little too quickly and therefore doing more than was expected of it at the start of the financial year. That, apparently, is a reason not to carry on treating patients who need treatment, but to stop doing anything until the end of the financial year.

The report goes on to complain of the very large increase in the number of emergency admissions in hospitals in the Camden and Islington area. The reason for that, I hazard to say, is that many people, out of desperation, present themselves at the casualty unit because they know that they will have to be seen, whereas if they go to a GP, they know that the GP, however hard he or she may try, will not be able to get them a bed or refer them to the hospital. Also, the increase in the number of emergency admissions is because of a large increase in bronchial conditions being referred to the hospital, which is a serious problem throughout London.

With respect to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), the large number of asthma cases referred to hospitals at present is to do with cars, with the building of roads, and with air pollution. Asthma and other bronchial illnesses are now of epidemic proportions in this capital city and it is up to the Government particularly to do something about air pollution and promoting public transport, rather than private, polluting motoring. Those issues can be ignored no longer.

Further on in the report, I found that waiting lists for operations in the hospitals in the community that I represent, at 30 September 1994, showed that 1,200 people were waiting for appointments at Whittington hospital, a similar number at London Royal Free hospital, an even larger number at the University College of London hospital and a slightly smaller number at St. Bartholomew's. Indeed, 40 per cent. of those people have been waiting more than six months for an appointment. I believe that those figures Will be considerably higher in future.

I have serious criticisms of the circular and, indeed, of the information that has been given to many people in the past about the way in which the internal market will operate in regard to the health service in London. The internal market is a recipe for disaster; it is impossible to plan within it; and it means that each hospital has to try to fend for itself, to win contracts if it can. It means that if the health authority does not have the money to pay for the treatment of patients, the patients have to wait longer and longer for operations, with consequent loss of earnings, loss of jobs and loss of employment prospects, and problems for the social services, carers, families, friends and everybody else. It is a completely mad way in which to run any kind of health service in this capital city.

Even further afield, I see the closures that are planned. On Saturday I went to Bart's to visit a very close friend of mine, who has been a patient there for the past six months. As I was walking through the hospital, looking at the buildings, feeling the sense of history and witnessing the absolute dedication and care of the staff there, who look after people in very serious conditions and do their best to make those patients' lives comfortable, I thought to myself that it was a criminal act to close that building. It is an act of lunacy, it is vandalism and it is fundamentally wrong.

I would hope that the Secretary of State for Health would go to Bart's and have the courage to look every patient and member of staff in the face and say, "You are surplus to requirements and we intend to go ahead with the closure of this hospital." To close that 800-year-old hospital is an act of the most crass vandalism imaginable, knowing full well that that hospital's patients will have to go on to the waiting lists of the UCL, of Whittington hospital, of the Royal Free and all the others; knowing full well that the closure of its casualty unit will mean that the already overstretched casualty units at UCL, the Whittington, the Royal Free and the North Middlesex will not be able to cope; and knowing fell well that the Secretary of State is also planning the closure of yet another casualty unit somewhere in north-east London. Frankly, it is appalling.

Even at this late hour, I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that she has been thrown a lifeline in the NHS management executive report last week which, at last, says that non-market considerations can be taken into account in the future of particular hospitals. I also hope, while she is on the subject, that the Secretary of State will look at the future of the Royal Northern hospital, which is also in my constituency, on the Holloway road. Its casualty unit was built as the borough's war memorial by public subscription—there is a large plaque to say so. Inside the hospital, there is an arch and an inscription for every one of those people who died in both world wars.

There is a huge local campaign to retain the building and use it as a nurse-managed bed facility, so that people coming out of long-stay or acute surgery will at least have somewhere to go for supportive care before they go home and can be looked after in the normal way. It would be a very cost-effective, good and sensible use of that building. I hope that the hon. Member who is reporting back to Ministers will relay that information to the Secretary of State and convey the concerns that many of us have expressed.

One hundred years ago, people in London hoped that their standard of living would start to improve, and that there would be more hospitals and better-quality housing, and the possibility at some point in the future of decent health care for them. All those people, who linked together the problems of poverty, unemployment, air pollution, bad housing and dangerous working conditions, recognised that health had to be taken as a whole. Yet here we are at the end of the 20th century, and all those problems are coming back to address us. It is time that we had a Secretary of State and a Government who were prepared to recognise that there is a link between debt, poverty, air pollution and homelessness and ill health. The greatest cause of ill health is poverty and all its aspects have to be treated as one.

I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that it is time that she got a grip on the way in which the health service is run in London, lifted the nonsense circular that affects my constituency and also lifted the axe that is hanging over one casualty unit and Bart's hospital. At least, then, people who were desperate for treatment would get the treatment for which they had paid through taxation and national insurance contributions and could sleep securely in their beds knowing that they would be treated over this Christmas period.

6.27 pm

Mr. Michael Carttiss (Great Yarmouth)

Before the House agrees to the motion to adjourn tomorrow, I should like to press on the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), in his absence, the need for a debate on the pros and cons of a national referendum being held before—not after—the 1996 intergovernmental conference. We need to consider not only the issue of a referendum itself, but the questions or question that may be asked.

The BBC "East at Westminster" programme in my region yesterday referred to the recent Gallup poll, which asked whether the public wanted a referendum on having a common currency in the European Union and closer ties with Europe—more rather than less integration with the EU—and in which 81 per cent. of the public responded yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West was on that programme and may have seen—

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)

I was not asked.

Mr. Carttiss

I know that my hon. Friend was not asked that question. However, 81 per cent. of the public responded yes, they wanted a referendum, and 13 per cent. said no.

A Sunday newspaper reported on 11 December that it had polled 100 constituency Conservative association chairmen on the same question. Over half those asked supported having a referendum.

With your great grasp of events and impressive memory, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will recall that I tabled an amendment to the Government's paving motion for the debate on what was to become Maastricht legislation. I argued that we should not proceed until after a referendum, either before or after the Edinburgh intergovernmental conference. I was unable to support either the Government or the Opposition. My right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, as they were then—I cannot call the Prime Minister my right hon. Friend now because he has crossed me off his Christmas card list—persuaded me to join them in the Lobby to vote for the Government's motion, which I did.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

They conned the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Carttiss

No, they did not con me. My then right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised me that there would be no Third Reading and no conclusion to the debate on Maastricht legislation until the Danes had had their second referendum. On that basis, I was happy to support him.

During the debate on 4 November—I apologise for detaining the House by regurgitating my words on that date—I referred to the American presidential election. The debate took place the following day. I said: The message that came from the United States via our televisions screens last night was clear and strong: President Bush had not addressed the jobs problem; he had seemed to leave the recession to sort itself out and had had no coherent economic programme; and he had lost touch with the people of America. I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if he does not address the problem of jobs, establish a coherent economic programme and regain touch with the people of this country, he will go the same way as George Bush."—[Official Report, 4 November 1992, Vol. 213; c. 337.] Happily, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) has addressed the "jobs problem". There has been a continuous improvement in employment prospects. The right hon. Gentleman has established an almost "coherent economic programme", with the one blip of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. Happily, I and some of my hon. Friends saved the Government from that dreadful mistake.

The Prime Minister was dead against a referendum two years ago, when I tabled my amendment, and before that. There was recently a reference to "another Whipless Tory". In fact, I am not whipless outside this place even if I am within it. [Interruption.] Read the News of the World. Although the Prime Minister was opposed to a referendum two years ago, as I said, last week he showed some movement towards recognising that the majority of the public want a referendum, and that is what the majority of the Conservative party wants.

I am not asking for a referendum on whether we stay in or leave the European Union. That decision has been taken. It is nonsense to pretend that there is any future for Great Britain outside the European Union. However, the way in which the EU develops in the remaining years of the century, and Great Britain's place in determining its future structure and the dimensions of the Union, should be debated more widely and more thoroughly before the Prime Minister goes to the IGC in 1996.

It is alleged that the Foreign Secretary is willing to have the issues debated. That is what we read in the newspapers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Never say never.

Mr. Carttiss

Indeed, never say never.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer—I cannot refer to him as my right hon. and learned Friend—is said to be dead against that course. He got it wrong on VAT and he has got it wrong on that.

Mr. Mackinlay

With friends like the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Carttiss

But I am not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Friend.

During the weekend, one of my constituents drew my attention to an article that had appeared in The Mail on Sunday of the previous weekend, on 11 December. It purported to have been written by the Prime Minister. Before I refer to the specific quotation in the article that my constituent was querying, I shall quote the sentence allegedly written by the Prime Minister when he spoke of my hon. Friends who lost the Whip on 28 November. The Prime Minister is alleged to have written: For some, Europe is anathema. They are appalled by all it has to offer and they seek—in their more extreme moments—a complete withdrawal. "No, no, no" was said in the Chamber on a memorable occasion by Lady Thatcher, as she now is, when, happily, she was Prime Minister. I say "No, no, no" to any thought of debating in this place or wherever a move out of Europe.

Mr. Skinner

The hon. Gentleman has lost me now.

Mr. Carttiss

Never mind.

I was referring to an article that appeared in The Mail on Sunday on 11 December. It contained the following statement under the Prime Minister's name: Some Conservative Members voted against the Government. They did so knowing that, if we had lost, there would have been a General Election. That is what he said. The name "John Major" appears over the article.

No Conservative Members voted against the Government on the night in question. Seven of my hon. Friends abstained when it came to the Labour amendment, which aimed to block European finance legislation, of which the majority of Labour Members are much in favour. I voted against the Labour amendment. I was one of 330 Members who voted with the Government to oppose that amendment. We gave the Prime Minister his vote of confidence with a majority of 27. I did not vote against the Government. I did not, as the Prime Minister claimed in the article, risk a general election.

The Prime Minister, if he did write the article, continued: So it is no use their pretending that their vote did not matter or that they did not know what the result would be.… That sort of self-indulgence is neither understood nor accepted by the vast majority of their colleagues in Parliament, or by the country. I resent being told that adhering to the Conservative party manifesto, on which right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench and I were elected, is self-indulgent. In Essen, the Prime Minister said: I hope over the months to come they will show they are Conservatives". That is a reference to those who were expelled from the Conservative party. The Prime Minister expressed the hope that they will support the Conservative Government, they will defend Conservative policy, they will defend the manifesto on which they and I were elected. I shall remind the House of promises that were made in the Conservative party's manifesto. It reads: We will insist on more effective control over community spending". That appears on page 4 of "The Best Future for Britain". That is the document on which I and all Conservative Members were elected, including, of course, those who now sit on the Government Front Bench. I repeat: We will insist on more effective control over community spending".

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is doing.

Mr. Carttiss

That is what my ex-hon. Friend says from a sedentary position. I know that he wants to speak in the debate, and the sooner I finish, the better will be his chance of making a contribution. I hope that he will not interrupt me to talk nonsense.

Over the past two years, nothing has been done to deal with the problem of fraud within the Community. That fraud has siphoned off £6 billion of European money. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have done nothing to address that problem. The EC budget is set to rise from £55 billion to £65 billion by 1999. We make an annual net contribution of £2 billion, and I could not vote for that—

Mr. Arnold

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carttiss

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has a long speech to make.

I could not vote for increasing our contribution in the light of the promise that I made to my electorate. 'That is why I did not support the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill although I voted against the Labour amendment, which made good sense. In our manifesto, we pledged: We will redouble our efforts to reform the common agricultural policy, and we will stoutly defend the interests of British farmers and consumers. In addition, we said: all member states must live up to their obligations under Community law … we secured agreement that the European Court will be able to fine any member state which fails to do so. Those are not my words; they are quoted from page 3 of the party manifesto.

Earlier this year, the European Commission fined Italy £2 billion for producing 1.5 million tonnes of milk a year in excess of its agreed quota for 1989 to 1993. Spain was fined £1.4 billion. Italy and Spain refused to pay. The United Kingdom, Holland and Denmark then lodged a case against the Italian and Spanish Governments at the European Court of Justice. However, on 21 October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew the United Kingdom complaint to the ECJ, much to the disgust of the Danes and the Dutch, who were outvoted. So much for our pledge in the manifesto in respect of which my right hon. and hon. former Friends were elected in 1992.

So much for our pledge to make the European Community states live up to their obligations under Community law. The EC backdated an increase in the Italian and Spanish milk quotas to 1989, so they escaped penalties of £800 million, which is about the sum that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was seeking to raise from taxing old-age pensioners' heat and light.

Meanwhile, dairy farmers in this country, including those whom I represent in Norfolk, have had to reduce milk production. Some have gone out of business. The cost of a pint of milk has risen and doorstep deliveries are said to be at risk. So much for the Government promising in our manifesto stoutly to defend British farmers and consumers.

When someone to whom one tells the truth in their front room throws one out, one does not walk up the garden path next morning, knock on the door and say, "Please let me in." It is up to the person who has thrown one out, and to whom one has told the truth, to recognise the trut hand say, "Please come back in." There should be cries not for party unity, but for sticking to the pledges upon which we were all elected in 1992.

6.42 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

It would be inappropriate of me to make my speech without acknowledging the courage of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) in the way that he spoke in such forthright terms. In a sense, it was a parliamentary occasion. It is very rare for someone to speak so frankly on the Floor of the House about the deep divisions in the Government and clearly indicate the extent of the bitterness in the Government ranks. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth should be congratulated on speaking in such frank and trenchant terms.

I do not believe that the House should adjourn, and I want to explain why. I want to reiterate a point that I have made in the House before. It is ludicrous that decisions about when this House should sit should be a matter for the Government and the Executive. Time and again, it seems that the House sits only if there is legislation for us to pass. The other important aspects of our parliamentary job, of scrutinising the Executive and of probing, cajoling and exposing, are deemed secondary to the role and interests of Government.

I look forward to the day—I believe that it will come one day, although perhaps not in my time here—when the House of Commons will be the arbiter of when the House sits and not the Executive.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

It is.

Mr. Mackinlay

My hon. Friend says that it is, but because of the payroll vote and the traditions of this place, the Government always get their way. I would like to see—

Mr. Spearing

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winnick

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mackinlay

I will give way in a moment, after I have completed my train of thought. The Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench agree through parliamentary choreography between themselves, and that is not in the interests of hon. Members in respect of their job of criticising and cajoling.

Mr. Winnick

Does my hon. Friend agree that the courageous speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth—it was a very courageous speech and I, like all my Labour colleagues, speak as a stern and never-ending opponent of Toryism—would not be possible if the proposals are passed tonight? Under the proposals, debates like the one we are having now would disappear for good.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

That is not so.

Mr. Winnick

Yes, it is so. My hon. Friend should read the Order Paper and my amendments.

Mr. Mackinlay

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I do not want to prejudge the debate that will take place later this evening, but there is a real danger that, far from us being able to assert the rights and powers of Back-Bench Members, we might allow them to be further eroded. The Adjournment of the House tomorrow, on the effective diktat of the Government, is bad on this occasion as it has been on other occasions.

During this debate, I have received notice from the Minister for Transport in London, as have other hon. Members, about the trunk road programme and the announcement of the new starts. In a letter to me, the Minister said that the A13 Wennington-Mar Dyke improvement scheme, which was previously an approved start for this year, has been postponed indefinitely.

I do not want to trespass into the debate about the roads programme, other than to say that it is indicative of how clumsy the Government are and how they are not running the country properly, because, during the debate, I have had a message bleeped to me which states that £2 million has already been spent on preparatory work for the A 13 scheme which was due to start in January. That is not the way to run the country.

Had the document to which I have referred appeared a few days ago, or if we had had a few more parliamentary sitting days, we might have been able to explore the Minister's thinking behind the decisions which, on -the face of it, appear not to have been thought through. I guess that that view is replicated by other hon. Members who have received similar letters about road schemes in the their constituencies.

Before the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) rushes over to bend the Lord President's ear, I want to make it clear that I am talking about the fact that the announcement—if that is the correct term—has been made at the fag end of a parliamentary sitting when there is little or no opportunity for us to probe the thinking behind it, particularly bearing in mind the fact that, in respect of the scheme to which I have referred, public money has been spent—perhaps abortively—in preparatory work. I would like to be able to probe the Minister further.

Mr. Jacques Arnold

Did the hon. Gentleman's Labour-led Essex county council downgrade the bid concerned and put other projects ahead of it in its application for transport supplementary grant?

Mr. Mackinlay

My point is that the matter is now under way. Decisions about our trunk road programme are not being made in a planned way. They are being taken by way of crisis government. There is a major revenue problem, and foolish decisions are being taken.

The issue to which I have just referred arose during this debate. It was not one of the issues to which I originally intended to refer. However, the House is to adjourn tomorrow, but a major issue which affects my constituency—and an issue which affects other hon. Members who have received similar letters about road programmes in their areas—has arisen, and we are unable to probe or examine the Minister's ludicrous decisions. In short, the Minister gets away with it, because Parliament will not be sitting after tomorrow.

The issue which should be raised, and which is an overriding case why the House should not adjourn, relates to Gibraltar. A week and a half ago, I asked the Leader of the House for an urgent statement from the Foreign Secretary about the reprehensible and unreasonable way in which the Spanish authorities were behaving towards the colony. Of course, no such statement was made. That demonstrates how the House is failing in its obligations to scrutinise the Executive, particularly the Foreign Secretary. In the absence of that statement, it is fair for me to conclude that right hon. Gentleman is behaving dilatorily towards Gibraltar. He is a thundering disgrace to the cause of the colony.

This country has a proud and historic association with Gibraltar. The fiction, although it should be true, is that the Gibraltarians are British people, who have European Union citizenship. They are being denied the right to protection from Her Majesty's Government—protection that is extended to people from Grantham, Grampian, Huntingdon or Thurrock.

We have learnt from newspapers, however, that the Gibraltarians are suffering great disadvantages because of the actions of the Spanish authorities. In fact, people from Grampian, Grantham or Thurrock who visit Spain and who wish to visit the British colony are also being frustrated. That is outrageous. One would have expected that such problems would prompt one hell of a row in the House, but no anger has been shown, except by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and me, when I raised the issue a week and a half ago.

Mr. Winnick

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. Does he agree that the issue of Gibraltar is germane to the motion that we are debating, because we simply do not know what might happen before we come back in January? In view of some of the accusations that may be made abroad or even in the House and elsewhere, it is important to make it clear that far from Britain wanting to keep Gibraltar as a colony because of our colonial heritage, the overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians—more than 90 per cent.—do not want to be part of Spain. If Spain wants Gibraltar, it is up to the Spanish authorities to persuade the Gibraltarians accordingly. I hope that we will not see any further appeasement from our Government on that important issue.

Mr. Mackinlay

My hon. Friend has always impressed me—even when he was the Member for Croydon, South a long time ago—because of the important principle of national self-determination to which he has always adhered. That principle should be vested in the people. There is no doubt that the Gibraltarians have demonstrated time and time again their wish to maintain their association with the United Kingdom. They are proud to be British, as well as embracing their Gibraltarian identity.

I was extremely proud to accompany a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House to Gibraltar this summer, at the invitation of the Chief Minister, to celebrate the Gibraltar national day. We saw with our own eyes the desire of the Gibraltarians to maintain their association with Britain, and to be full British citizens. In reality, they are also citizens of the European Union, but they are currently being denied the rights of that citizenship because of the unreasonable actions of the Spanish authorities.

The hon. Members who made that visit smelt that something was up when the Governor of Gibraltar failed to receive our delegation—we were told that he was otherwise detained at a family wedding. It was somewhat surprising that the Governor, who is no doubt a fine former military man with a brace of medals, felt that it was inappropriate for him to join in the celebration of the existence of the colony of Gibraltar.

At that time, we also heard that the Attorney-General of Gibraltar had been eased out of office. According to today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, it is suggested that that was part of a pattern of skulduggery, emanating not a million miles from the Foreign Office. It appears that the Foreign Office is attempting to appease the Spanish authorities and to undermine Gibraltar Ministers. That is outrageous.

Should the Leader of the House say in reply to the debate that I am scaremongering and embroidering the facts, that is his fault, because I legitimately asked for a statement from the Foreign Office a week and a half ago, but was denied it. That was wrong.

I have every confidence in and support the Administration of the Chief Minister, Joe Bossano, and his colleagues. They have done a great deal to maintain the economy of the colony at a time when it faced a major crisis through the swift withdrawal of funding from the Ministry of Defence, which had been given because the colony was used as a port. The Administration had to find other means of maintaining the economy, and they have done very well. I accept that mistakes might have been made, but the colony has not had much support from the United Kingdom Government. That, too, is disgraceful.

The Spanish Government are now turning on the screws by making spurious suggestions about major irregularities in the customs arrangements between Gibraltar and Spain. They have claimed widespread smuggling of drugs, cigarettes and other contraband. The implication behind those suggestions is that the Gibraltarian authorities are acquiescing in those irregularities. I do not believe that that is so, but, were it so, one would expect Her Majesty's Government to tackle it and to make a statement to the House. They have failed to do so.

I challenge the Leader of the House to arrange for a Minister from the Foreign Office to make a statement to the House on Gibraltar before we adjourn. The Government, for all their boasts about their prowess and their apparent macho diplomacy, have once more demonstrated their weakness when it comes to protecting and promoting the best interests of British people, albeit those who live in Gibraltar. The Government are appeasing Spain, and it is about time that something was done.

I notice that, by coincidence, a meeting is planned at the Foreign Office tomorrow with Spanish Foreign Ministers. That means, of course, that it will be too late for a statement to be made to the House about the outcome of those talks. By the time the House returns, things will have moved on and gone off the boil. We will be faced with a backlog of other issues that hon. Members will want to raise. The problems faced by Gibraltar will be ignored.

It is not unreasonable for me to accuse the Government of behaving dilatorily towards Gibraltar and to demand a statement. I hope that the good sense of the majority of hon. Members will persuade them to join me in arguing that we should not adjourn until such a statement is made.

6.57 pm

Mr. Douglas French (Gloucester)

I was surprised when the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) was so suspicious of my brief intervention in his speech, when I pointed out that charges on the Severn bridge were levied in one direction only.

I support the line that the hon. Gentleman has taken. One reason that the charges are so high is that they are only imposed in one direction. They could certainly be reduced if they were charged in both directions. He will be pleased to know that a delegation of Conservative Members and local councillors from the area recently met the Minister for Railways and Roads to discuss the future tariff arrangements for the bridge. I hope that that meeting will produce some constructive results.

During the Christmas period, there will, sadly, be many road accidents, as usual, and many will involve uninsured motorists. That is a serious matter, on which the time for action has arrived. Effective and practical measures could be taken to reduce the problem significantly in the United Kingdom as it has been overcome in other countries. One such measure is the mandatory display of windscreen insurance discs.

Through my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I urge the Secretary of State for Transport to re-examine that policy to see whether a way could be found to implement it. The idea has a long history. I raised it in the House as long ago as the Christmas Adjournment debate in 1991. Since then, organisations like the Motor Accident Solicitors Society have declared themselves much in favour, and the Association of British Insurers has also made positive comments. Admittedly, some leading insurance companies have been more sceptical.

It is a serious problem. The best estimate is that, of 23 million motorists in this country at present, approximately a million drive with no insurance. Rising premiums have caused a growing number of people to think that it is better to drive while uninsured and face a slim chance of being caught than pay a yearly premium that is likely to be more expensive than a fine imposed by a magistrates court.

To counter the problem of uninsured drivers, the Government have increased the maximum penalty for driving while uninsured from £1,000 to £5,000. But that scarcely touches the heart of the problem. In 1990, only five drivers in the entire country were fined more than £1,000 for driving without insurance. In 1991 there were six, and in 1992 there were 25, but only one was given the maximum penalty of £5,000. That is one driver out of a total estimated number of 1 million.

The failure to tackle the problem vigorously is expensive, because uninsured motorists give rise to claims bills of some £250 million a year. Thus, a £250 million subsidy is paid by honest motorists to dishonest motorists. The Motor Insurance Bureau is funded by a 2.5 per cent. levy on motor insurance policies, which is not much different from the insurance premium tax, on which so much objection has been expressed. The Motor Insurance Bureau operates on a restrictive basis—a last resort—so that, in many cases, it will not meet claims, which then fall on the insurance policy of the driver who was insured, even though no culpability can be demonstrated.

Whenever this subject is raised, there are said to be insuperable obstacles. Windscreen insurance discs are said to be incompatible with a system based on insuring the driver rather than the vehicle. It is said that WIDs do not prove that the person driving the vehicle is insured to drive it—some insurance policies cover an insured person and his spouse or a named driver only. It is also said that WIDs cannot accommodate the different uses to which a vehicle may be put—some policies restrict a vehicle's use to social, domestic and pleasure purposes, while others cover business.

The Department of Transport accepted all those objections when it made its last major statement on the matter in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). The then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), said: we have decided not to require evidence of insurance to be displayed on a vehicle windscreen. Under our present driver-related insurance system the enforcement benefit would be little more than is already provided by the check on insurance which is made when renewing vehicle excise duty. That explanation did not do the Minister credit, because it amounts to a massive understatement. Everybody knows that vehicle excise duty provides no check whatever, because it can be obtained for a year with insurance that is valid for only 24 hours.

The Minister's answer went on: The display of an insurance disc would provide no assurance that the driver was covered by an insurance policy or complying with policy conditions". Of course it would not. Its advocates do not suggest that it would. But it provides more information than would otherwise be available if it were not displayed and, as such, must be helpful.

The Minister continued: nor would it protect against the insurance being cancelled once the disc has been issued."— [Official Report, 23 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 171.] But it would protect against cancellation if, to get the premium refund, the policy holder was required to return the disc. None of those arguments carries any weight, except for those looking for reasons not to take that action.

A windscreen insurance disc system would provide tangible evidence that some kind of insurance cover was in place in relation to a particular vehicle. It would be evidence of the existence of an insurance policy but not proof of its adequacy, which would still be provided by supporting policy documents. The disc could provide much valuable information, such as the name and age of the driver, the classification of use, the date of expiry, whether the policy is for any vehicle or, if it is for only one vehicle, and the make and registration number of the vehicle.

For people insured to drive more than one vehicle—in practice, the vast majority of people drive only one or, at most, two vehicles—individuals could display their personal disc on the windscreen before starting out on a journey. That would become as automatic as clicking on a seat belt.

Some important parallels can be drawn with vehicle excise duty, for which the display of valid cover is mandatory. There are 140,000 convictions a year for failing to display a road fund licence. They are not displayed because they have not been bought; but the chances of identifying 140,000 evaders without a requirement to display would be minimal. So the need to display enhances compliance. I submit that, were not the tax disc required to be displayed, the level of evasion would be much higher. It therefore follows that, if an insurance disc were required to be displayed, the number of uninsured motorists would be likely to decrease or the number of evaders apprehended would increase.

I have heard it said that the policy that I am urging on the Secretary of State would cause administrative burdens. With up-to-date technology, however, it is simple for an insurance company to provide a disc in the form of a tear-off section on the certificate issued when the cover is taken out. For insurance companies whose systems are up to date, that would present no difficulty whatever.

There is even an opportunity for a go-ahead insurance company to blaze a trail and introduce windscreen insurance discs voluntarily. It could be done in conjunction with an advertising campaign. Indeed, the disc could promote the brand name of the insurer. More generally, the industry could require display to meet the terms of the policy. It might even provide a small discount for doing so.

Such a system would meet with the significant approval of the police. All my exchanges with the police on the subject have shown that they are extremely enthusiastic about it. Discs would provide on-the-spot information which the police often have difficulty in extracting. They would save police time in checking insurance details, as well as the costly and totally unnecessary procedure of producing documents at another police station some days later, which is said to cost the police some £20 million a year, the majority of which could be saved.

Most important, that would increase the chances of catching uninsured drivers, many of whom are to be found around Christmas time. The present system catches only those who are stopped by the police and required to produce their insurance documents. It fails to catch about 750,000 people who fall into that category.

The windscreen insurance disc system has worked successfully in other countries, such as France, Ireland and Italy. It is well known by those who have looked at the subject that, before Ireland introduced WIDs in 1986, as many as 20 per cent. of drivers were uninsured. Within a year, that number had fallen to 8 per cent. The Irish Government estimated that every uninsured driver cost those drivers who were insured an extra £70 in premium. That Irish system is driver-based, and generally uses the insurance companies that operate in the United Kingdom and in Jersey, where the system has also been introduced with success.

Finally, the implementation of this proposal should be accompanied by the requirement that drivers be able to produce driving licences and insurance documents on the spot—that is to say, that those documents should be carried at all times. A combination of those two proposals would bring down the number of uninsured motorists, would help the police, and would greatly reduce insurance premiums for the many honest motorists.

7.10 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I shall speak briefly because other people want to speak. The main reason why I should like this debate to take place before the Christmas Adjournment is that today I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Education, in reply to my request that a deputation be allowed to meet her with a view to getting a single site for the Bolsover school. I had raised the matter previously on the Floor of the House, and I took it for granted that a deputation comprising Bolsover school governors, the Derbyshire education committee and myself would be able to meet her; yet, for some strange reason, the Secretary of State refused.

I hope that the Leader of the House will convey that information to the Secretary of State. As a result of raising the matter in that fashion, we might be able to arrange that meeting.

I think that it was at this time last year that I mentioned the Bolsover landslip in this Adjournment debate. The Leader of the House conveyed the relevant information, and we obtained a meeting with the Department of the Environment at that time. Although we did not get everything we asked for—we did not get the £1 million—we were able to arrange for a survey to be undertaken with a view to stabilising that dangerous landslip. I hope that the Leader of the House can do the same again in respect of the matter that I have mentioned today.

The only other matter that I shall mention is the dioxin at Bolsover Coalite, which I have mentioned many times in similar Adjournment debates and on other occasions. Greenpeace recently tested the dioxin level of the blood of many workers at Bolsover Coalite—testing that had never been undertaken by the Department of Health. Greenpeace found some alarming results. Some of the tests showed dioxin levels four or five times worse than what were supposed to be normal levels; whereupon the workers at Coalite decided to send me a petition, asking whether the Secretary of State for Health would arrange for proper blood tests of dioxin levels to be taken for all workers that wanted them. I sent on the infonnation. Sadly, the Secretary of State for Health has refused to allow those tests to take place.

I make that request to the Leader of the House, bearing in mind the fact that this type of Adjournment debate has been valuable in the past for many of us to raise matters of a constituency nature, however briefly, and that on some occasions we have managed to get the wheels of government turning in our direction. I hope that that occurs on this occasion as well.

7.13 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was the 16th speaker in the debate and, having listened to all the speeches, I have to say that they have all been models of their type. Some have been short and effective, as was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover; some have been longer, but nevertheless models of their type. They prove that this type of setpiece debate before a recess is justified to enable hon. Members to raise various issues. No one wants to snuff out such debates.

Speeches such as those that were made tonight will be able to be made before the recess next Christmas, but on a Wednesday morning instead of late at night. It is inconceivable that, as three or four of the speakers said—for example, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—we will not be able to hold this type of debate in the future. The debate will simply move to a different part of the week.

I confess some astonishment, as it is one of my few visits to the House in recent weeks, having been occupied in the midlands, that no hon. Member mentioned—as I suspect that hon. Members have in the past couple of weeks, and after last Thursday as well—the need for an urgent debate on the scandalous goings-on in the gas industry and the drop in morale among employees of that world-class company.

If I had been a Back Bencher, I should have wanted to hold a debate on the public funding of political parties in view of the exposé in the Financial Times today of the funding of the Conservative party by British business. I should also have wanted to debate one of the other issues mentioned in relation to the health service by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North—the proposed closure of Bart's. However, I should have wanted to widen the debate, to encompass the climate of fear that exists in the national health service and employees in that service—the fear to speak out about the truth about what is going on in the national health service. That issue demands the attention of the House.

I suspect that other hon. Members might have wanted to mention the gross invasion of privacy by the press in recent days.

I cannot mention all the speeches that were made tonight, but I support that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) about the crazy situation that has arisen regarding the Severn bridge. I probably use it no more than half a dozen times a year, but I also use the roads in Gloucestershire, and what has happened there as a result of the abuse of effective privatisation is crazy. The sufferers are not only the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, but the, believe it or not, tens of thousands of people who live in the Gloucestershire area, where the roads are being damaged again by people who seek to abuse the toll system.

I did not know, I confess, that there are differences between the arrangements for the tracking through of commercial vehicles at Dartford and on the Severn bridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East was absolutely right to mention that.

The hon. Member for Staffordshire, or part of Staffordshire—I always forget which—

Mr. Cormack

South.

Mr. Rooker

The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) mentioned the important subject of the neglect by the House of the situation in Bosnia, but his speech went wider than that, because it is an issue as the House breaks for Christmas.

British troops are in many parts of the world, but our service personnel are on call in Bosnia. Their lives are at risk during the recess and in the new year—a vulnerable part of the year. We know that they will not relax as everyone else relaxes, as they seek to ensure that the convoys of food and other aids get through to that troubled part of Europe. That is the scandal. It is a troubled part of Europe, and the trouble should not have been allowed to exist anywhere in the way that it has in the past three years. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that to the House in this short debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who has apologised because he cannot be present, mentioned the county hall saga, which is becoming nothing short of a catastrophe for the Government. The building is now an eyesore. People, especially tourists, stop while walking across the road and ask, "What is that building over there?"—draped as it is with banners and scaffolding, and allowed to decay.

The building is a national asset. Only political spite and bile have not allowed it to be used for a major public sector facility, such as the London School of Economics or some other provision. It cannot be allowed to decline further. The cost of putting it right will be more in the long term, as everyone knows.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), wearing his hat as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, but, I suspect, in some ways wearing his previous hat as the Member for Brierley Hill from 1967 to 1974, made an astonishing attack on a new Member of the House, who had taken his seat and been sworn in as recently as one hour before, and who is powerless at the moment to defend himself.

It is outrageous to argue that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson)—what a phrase, eh—my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West?— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—did not seek to engage in any debate during the by-election. He accepted every invitation that was offered to him by everyone who wanted to put all the candidates on one platform or wanted to put the Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates on the platform with a Labour candidate. One of the reasons that that did not come about was the abuse of the Representation of the People Acts by minor parties who are not seriously interested in exercising political power, and who abuse the electoral process.

All responsible political parties which are represented in the House are serious contenders for political power and should put their programmes and policies before the people at elections. That matter should be addressed so that we are not prevented from putting forward our case at by-elections or general elections by minor parties who have no interest in the outcome of the results. It is an abuse. I do not wish to snuff out minor parties—far from it. Parties should be registered. I am in favour of all other aspects of modernising our political process.

There is consensus among the responsible parties represented in the House to ensure that we are not deprived of the opportunity to put forward our proposals on television and radio in elections. That matter should be addressed. That process was behind the comments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, which were somewhat unkind, but I understand the spirit in which they were made, with a 29 per cent. almost English all-comers' record for the Labour party. I can understand why not a single paid Government Whip has been present for the debate. They are attending not a celebration party but a wake.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on a separate issue, which is concern about the press interview given by Myra Hindley. This is a matter for personal views, and I speak for myself. I have always been an abolitionist. One of the planks that I have always used, even when I debated the issue at school, is that, in respect of some of the most heinous crimes, life should mean life. That costs the taxpayer more, I understand, but it is part of the quid pro quo of being an abolitionist—that is, in some cases, life must mean life. Frankly, in that case, it is absolutely certain that life should mean life. I respect the hon. Gentleman for what he said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the collapse of the social housing programme and the effect on homelessness. He is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting raised the long-delayed Government response to the Latham report. In one of my previous incarnations, I spoke on housing and construction on behalf of my party. Michael Latham's work makes a major contribution to renewing and reforming an industry upon which the country depends. That industry does not have a large import content. It is home-grown; it is labour-intensive in terms of creating jobs. My hon. Friend listed a host of proposals which deserve serious and, what is more, urgent Government consideration. I do not regard such legislation as politically contentious. There would be good will on both sides.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) deployed a case for flood victims. Like others, I have seen the effects only on television. Astonishing new rivers were created in a major city overnight, leaving many constituents homeless during this festive time. My hon. Friend's call for extra help for victims should not be unheard.

The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a powerful intervention, and I respect the way in which he made it. He shared with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) a call for the urgent need to return to the railway building industry. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Because I was not present at Question Time, I did not know that it has been disclosed that this is the first year since 1948 that British Rail has not ordered any rolling stock. In one of my previous incarnations before I came to the House, I worked briefly for Metro-Camell Ltd, the carriage and wagon works in Birmingham. I understand something of the nature of that industry.

It beggars belief that York—to many people, it is the home of the railway industry and of our fine national railway museum, which I have visited on a couple of occasions—will be left without capacity to build railway vehicles and carriages. If we do not invest in the industry, the result will be fewer British jobs, less capacity to build and design, and less potential for export. One industry after another has gone down the plughole. Because of the 15 January deadline, the option should be addressed urgently by the Government. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that that matter is addressed.

I pay tribute to the brave and courageous speech by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss). I mean that most sincerely. I understand the position in which he and some of his colleagues find themselves. One of them is my pair, and I want him back with the Whip as soon as possible. I certainly respect the way in which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth put his case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made a case for Gibraltar. I have visited Gibraltar a couple of times. I have no interest to declare; they were private holidays in 1977 and 1979. At that time, Joe Bossano was the organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union in the colony. From my three weeks in the colony and from listening to Gibraltarians talking in the streets, cafes and pubs about their feelings then—they have not changed—I know that in no circumstances would they be prepared to be ruled by Madrid. There is no question about it. I suspect that the hype has probably been raised so that the British Government can sell out on the fishing negotiations regarding the Irish box. That will pacify the Spaniards to keep the heat off Gibraltar. I hope that that is not the case, but I am naturally a suspicious person.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said that the Secretary of State for Education declined to meet him regarding the Bolsover school. From my experience, the Secretary of State for Education would be well advised to meet my hon. Friend, or she will have a very uncomfortable 1995.

7.25 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). More and more it feels like an occasion for a certain kind of groupie, as I have now had to reply to seven or eight recess Adjournment debates, and there is a certain repetition in those who appear on such occasions. I can hardly remember one without the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). I emphasise that that is no criticism, before anybody attacks me. I do not think that I can remember a single one without my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery), not many without my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), and indeed very few without either my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) or the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I must at least pay tribute to their assiduity in attending such occasions.

I was grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Perry Bar about suggestions that such opportunities are about to disappear for ever. Such suggestions do not seem to stand up. That matter will be the focus of attention in the next debate.

Mr. Spearing

rose—

Mr. Newton

I have little time. If the hon. Gentleman's point relates to the procedure motions, I suggest that he might sensibly make his comments it when we reach them.

As ever, I will not be able to refer to all speeches with a substantial comment. However, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) always takes me by surprise when he asks for something nicely rather than beating me about the ears, I will certainly communicate his requests—

Mr. Skinner

I am here to oppose the Government.

Mr. Newton

There was no sign of the Christmas spirit in the hon. Gentleman earlier, but no doubt it has overtaken him in the intervening period. I welcome that. I will certainly draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health.

Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made only the modest request that I pass on his comments about the local government settlement and the meeting that he hopes to have, and of course I will do that.

The hon. Member for Perry Barr made an additional comment about the points raised by the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on the Severn bridge tolls. The toll levels were debated when Parliament considered what is now the Severn Bridges Act 1992. The hon. Gentleman took a leading part in those debates. As I understand it, the toll levels are based on a formula which is set out in the Act, so there is nothing mysterious in the matter. It is fair that bridge users, rather than the general taxpayer should finance a crossing—the new crossing, that is—which is exceptionally expensive and offers exceptional time savings to those who benefit from its construction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South will know that there is not much that I can add to what I have said on previous occasions, but he knows also that the British Government very much want UNPROFOR to stay as long as it can fulfil its mandate without unacceptable risks. I shall bring to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the comments that he made and the questions that he asked.

I think that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) conveyed less than the full flavour of what my colleague said today about the Newbury by-pass—although I understand why he wished to raise the matter. As I understand it, it has been announced that work on the A34 Newbury by-pass is on hold for about a year. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he will examine each road scheme decision as it is put to him, and he has concluded that the Highways Agency should be asked to look again at the plans for the bypass and to explore other options as a matter of urgency.

So, while I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view and the desire of those who want early relief, we also need to ensure that we find the right solution. The same applies to a number of other road schemes referred to today—Oxleas Wood and the east Thames crossing, for instance.

As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend has today announced an initiative to refocus the road programme to make the most effective use of the existing network. In the light of the strong objections that have been expressed about the environmental impact of the new Newbury by-pass route, my right hon. Friend has insisted that the Highways Agency report to him on the consistency of the Newbury proposals with the new direction that he is giving to the road programme. The hon. Gentleman may still have reservations—I do not suggest that it would be unreasonable if he did—but that is rather different from the flavour of his speech, in which he suggested that the road had just been ruthlessly cancelled.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

Will the Leader of the House tell us, therefore, whether all the Government's road programme schemes will be subjected to road assessment, in line with the details announced in the SACTRA report?

Mr. Newton

I am not in a,position to add to what the Secretary of State said today, nor will I—except in respect of the points made by the hon. Member for Newbury, on which I sought further information during the debate.

As for the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), I have already arranged that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will look into the matter and will write to him. I trust that will be helpful.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was in good form earlier, but I thought that he went a fraction over the top. If there is to be a significant change to the plans for county hall, a new planning application will be needed, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would carefully consider whether to call in any such application for his determination.

I suspect that I will be able to say very little more about the remaining speeches if I am to achieve the requirement under the Orders of the House to finish by 7.34 pm. I have, however, carefully noted, and will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention, both the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale about housing matters and the comments of the hon. Member for Tooting about the Latham report. I understand that the Government are considering a progress report from the Latham review implementation forum during the next few weeks, and the Environment Secretary proposes to respond to it in early February.

I well understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) felt it right to discuss the flooding in Scotland, if only because I happen to have been born and brought up in the Essex port of Harwich, where eight people were drowned on the occasion of the North sea floods in 1952 or 1953. I therefore have a clear impression of the difficulties that floods can cause for communities. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to examine carefully what the hon. Gentleman said.

The same goes for what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said about transport orders. I know that my right hon. Friend has asked British Rail to reach its conclusions as soon as possible. I do feel, however, that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) might have paid some tribute to the investment in one tube station in his constituency and to the amount spent on new Northern line trains in recent times. Instead, he simply reiterated his list of complaints—

Madam Speaker

Order.

Mr. Newton

I am sure that Foreign Office Ministers will look carefully at what has been said about Gibraltar. Finally, I pass by the interesting speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss).

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 20th December, do adjourn until Tuesday 10th January.