Adjournment (Christmas)

HC Deb 18 December 1996 vol 287 cc864-904

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]

9.36 am

Mr. David Porter (Waveney)

Before we go into the Christmas recess, I should like to raise some points about the economy and my constituency. Like many of our coastal communities and their rural hinterlands, Waveney's unemployment and some infrastructural obstacles remain stubbornly high. In Waveney, there is not the same relative prosperity, per capita income or inward investment that there is in most of East Anglia.

I have taken the view ever since I was elected that I should make a judgment on each issue before the House in the light of how my constituents will be affected. I am one of the happy minority of Members who represents the area where he was born and brought up. When I have decided not to support the Government—on Europe, fisheries, or health matters, for instance—I have done so with the best intentions of serving my constituents.

Many years ago, I first became convinced as a teenager of the Conservative philosophy of freedom of choice, free enterprise, freedom to spend more of one's own money and freedom from state control. Through my childhood I watched my parents working day and night to establish a small business in a shop over which we lived. I was in the sixth form during the 1964 general election campaign, when I saw two prominent Labour party Front Benchers, Fred Peart and George Brown, swan in and treat Lowestoft to a display of hypocrisy, contempt and arrogance that sickened me.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

They still won the election.

Mr. Porter

Indeed they did, but that was old Labour. Since then, it has repackaged its image. The Conservative party has repackaged its image too, to some extent—freedom of choice has become an opportunity for all. That same basic gut feeling about offering opportunity made it possible for me, from an ordinary background, to become a Conservative Member of Parliament and speak for Waveney, as I am doing quite unashamedly in this speech.

We live in a world in which we have to accept regulation and control, where freedom exists under the law, and where responsibilities run alongside freedom of choice. It is a fact of life that sometimes the market needs stimulating, realigning and fine-tuning in the public interest, just as privatised industries need regulators.

I say all that by way of preamble, because I wish to praise the Government for listening to some of the representations that I and others, of all parties and none, have made about the need to inject public money in a structured and targeted way into parts of my constituency.

We have missed out on assisted area status each time so far. Great Yarmouth, up the road, has it, and there is no doubt that that fact has the potential to suck many jobs out of Waveney and into Great Yarmouth. However, we have objective 5b status, and from that some money is beginning to flow into a variety of projects.

This week we have had not merely an injection but a transfusion of money and targeted support. The Kirkley regeneration initiative, Lowestoft, has been successful under round 3 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. That is a seven-year scheme in an area rated as the second most deprived in Suffolk, which suffers from high unemployment and from social, environmental and crime problems. Incidentally, both Benjamin Britten and I were born there.

The scheme aims to support business and to introduce crime prevention measures, infrastructure improvements, health measures, drug and alcohol counselling, training for the unemployed, housing improvements and an expansion of tourism. The council failed last year with a bid for industry-led regeneration, and it has built on advice from the Government office for the eastern region—an excellent support body.

Over the full seven years, the scheme should receive £4.2 million in support from the challenge fund. That money, complemented by nearly £22 million of private sector funding and other public money, should create 100 jobs, support 75 business start-ups, fund 50,000 weeks of training, help 875 people obtain qualifications and 125 people obtain jobs, provide 10,000 sq m of new business and commercial floor space, and improve or build 400 homes.

Kirkley, which is in south Lowestoft, is an area of enormous potential, with the best beach in Britain. The news is good, by any standards. As required under the rules of the challenge, Waveney district council led the bid. What puzzles me is why the controlling Labour party on the council should be happy that the Government have accepted that deserving case, yet still threatens to do away with such competitive bidding. I do not understand why Labour wants to stop ensuring that public money goes where it will be well spent and is most needed. That is new Labour with its old roots showing.

In the rest of the county, Suffolk Prosper, another seven-year project, is to receive more than £750,000, yet still Labour would remove that targeted money and the competitive edge. Labour wants to stop keeping local authorities on their toes in that way.

We are also to receive almost £3.2 million for the final 1-km phase of the Lowestoft northern spine road, which will promote economic development and alleviate traffic problems, and which includes the provision of a major cycle track. In addition, under the local transport capital expenditure we shall receive £150,000 for a package to assist public transport, make pedestrian route improvements and encourage more cycling.

There are still major problems caused by the axing of the trunk roads programme before the A12 had been properly dualled from London to Great Yarmouth. The third crossing at Lowestoft is the one project that would best link all the other schemes and plans, all the hopes and aspirations of businesses and individuals. I have not given up on that, and I shall see my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads about it yet again next month.

We still need success under the challenge for help with funding for closed-circuit television cameras in Kirkley and south Lowestoft, as well as in central Lowestoft, to complete the major drive in which Waveney is fighting for Waveney. However, what we already have is significant, at a time when public resources are in such demand.

The Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce and industry, and business link will all merge in April. The Lowestoft 2000 consortium of local business is marketing Lowestoft aggressively and effectively. Yes, things have been hard, but the horizon is bright, provided that we do not throw it all away.

The Futura project, and the "Caring for Education" initiative, both of which I have mentioned in the House recently, are new ideas—innovative exciting projects that will harness the best in local people, enterprise, and both public and private finance. Next year, East Anglia will have the east of England investment agency, which will serve Lowestoft and the other parts of my constituency, including the towns of Beccles, Bungay, Southwold and Halesworth. Truly the future is bright—the future is blue.

Of course it could be argued that all that money in grants, especially the European Union money, would not be necessary if the country were not paying a subscription to the EU. Our subscription could stay in the United Kingdom to fund the regeneration, the inward investment and the attraction of tourists, and to give business even lower taxes. But I shall not develop that argument now.

I shall finish on a truth that is a lesson for us all, including my right hon. and hon. Friends in government. A Government who respond positively to communities that are determined to succeed for themselves are an effective Government, a Government who truly extend opportunities for all.

9.44 am

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Before the House rises for the recess, one or two matters should be raised. We all know that an election should have been held before now. The Government cling on desperately, hoping against hope that something will turn up to reverse the tide of public opinion that is flowing against them.

It would be far better for our democracy and for the political health of the country if the election had taken place in the autumn. Then the electorate would have decided accordingly. For a Government who have been in office for more than 17 years to hang on as a minority Administration is not in the interests of this country, and clearly we can expect the Government to remain determined to cling on until almost the last moment, to see whether they can stay in office.

Ministers seem to be adopting today's equivalent of the 17th-century monarch's divine right to rule. To them it seems almost an impertinence that there could be a different Government in this country. However, democracy depends on changes in Government and in the political parties that form Administrations; it does not mean one party being in power all the time. I believe that there is undoubtedly a wish for change in the country—we shall see whether I am right when the time comes—and that by clinging to office the Government are doing themselves no good.

If I may refer to the point of order that I raised earlier—without involving you in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and taking full responsibility for my own words—I shall add that in my view an apology is required from Ministers for what occurred on Monday.

If that does not happen, I hope that the policy announced by the Opposition Chief Whip will come into operation in the new year, and pairing arrangements will come to an end. If the Government feel otherwise, it would be appropriate for the Leader of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Government Chief Whip before we rise for the recess today. That is the least that we expect from the Government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick

Not with any enthusiasm, but I suppose so, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Arnold

I am flattered indeed. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he was a Member of Parliament in the late 1970s, when the Labour Government that he supported were in a considerable minority? Would he care to justify what went on then and tell the House about the skulduggery in the Labour Whips Office, and thereby show an interesting modesty?

Mr. Winnick

One thing is certain: at all times we have acted with dignity. [Interruption.] I see that the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway)—the Government Whip who is, rightly or wrongly, being held responsible for Monday's cheating—is having a laugh.

I remember one incident from the late 1970s that has not been and is not likely to be repeated. That was when the present Deputy Prime Minister, who was then a prominent figure on the Opposition Front Bench, picked up the Mace and started brandishing it. No wonder he acquired the nickname "Tarzan".

I was not present at the time—I was between parliamentary seats—but many of my hon. Friends were, and they witnessed that incident. So we do not require any lectures, least of all from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who will be extremely fortunate if he manages to hold on to his seat at the election. I imagine that he will be one of the casualties.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

The Deputy Prime Minister was not suspended when he did that, either.

Mr. Winnick

No, he was not—unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, who has been suspended once or twice.

I want now to draw attention to what life will be like for many of our fellow citizens this Christmas. This should be a festive season and people should have the financial means to have a reasonably happy Christmas and new year but far too many people live in poverty or near-poverty. The proportion of people living in poverty has more than trebled since 1979, from one in 14 to one in four. The number of children living in poverty has soared from one in 10 to one in three. The number of people dependent on means-tested benefits has doubled, from one in 12 to one in six. On income, the bottom tenth of the population is 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms, while the top tenth is almost two thirds better off. That has happened during the past 17 years.

Some might say that the figures were produced by the Labour party, but they are based on parliamentary replies from Government Departments. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is certainly non-party, published its report on income and wealth in February 1995, it concluded that the divide between rich and poor was deepening. It recommended a far-reaching programme to stop what it described as the damaging consequences of that divide.

It is unfortunate that so many of the things that we hoped had gone for ever, such as mass unemployment, poverty, large numbers of people on means-tested benefits, the many pensioners who live on the smallest possible income and who find it almost impossible—perhaps the word "almost" is unnecessary—to make ends meet from day to day, have come back to our country. That is why, on the eve of Christmas 1996, after nearly 18 years of Tory government, we should be deeply concerned about what has happened to our country.

I do not suggest that post-war Governments, including Conservative ones, had no social problems or that people did not live on small incomes. Things were far from perfect after the second world war, but we all hoped, in the 30 years or so after the war, that the worst sort of poverty and poverty-related illnesses had been removed from our country for good, that at least we had made that much progress since the 1920s and 1930s. We hoped that the social changes had not only been made but consolidated to form a permanent part of British society. It is an unfortunate curse that in 1996 so many of our fellow citizens, through no fault of their own, should live on incomes on which they cannot manage.

The statistics that I have cited show what sort of country Britain has again become. We have gone back to the past in ways that I and my hon. Friends hoped would never again return to our shores. The Opposition look forward to a change of Government and policy, to an honest Government that will be concerned with all our people, not one tiny section.

We can only conclude that this Christmas will be sad in many respects for the people that I have described who live on the barest possible income and who do not have anywhere near enough to live on. They include pensioners, many of whom served in the last war. They sometimes ask me, "Who won the war?", and we know exactly what they mean. Anyone who disputes that, disputes what is actually happening up and down the country. I only hope that we can change policies so that we can give hope to them that they will have enough to live on and will not have to live in circumstances that are disgraceful in an advanced industrial country such as Britain.

9.54 am

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

We should not adjourn for Christmas without carefully considering several concerns of importance to my constituents. I wish to raise four issues: first, the success of the Government's private finance initiative and the opportunities that it creates for north-west Kent finally to gain our new district general hospital at Darenth Park; secondly, a matter that concerns my Sikh constituents, the state of human rights in their homeland, the Punjab; thirdly, the Kent Thames-side bid for the British academy of sports; fourthly, the south Thames-side development route phase 4, which is vital for the developments at Ebbsfleet in my constituency and to the peace and well-being of the people of Northfleet.

My constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), rely on three ancient hospitals: Joyce Green, West Hill and Gravesend and North Kent. We have been in the queue for 25 years for a brand new district general hospital, which would cost some £100 million. Each time that our local NHS has built up the project, the powers that be—under Governments of both parties—have considered it, gone white at the size of the price tag, and asked us to revise the project and find whether we could do it in phases. If we did it in phases, we would be trapped on the highly unsuitable Joyce Green site, north of Dartford.

That was the old NHS system: queuing up for the annual dole of capital funding—a system to which the Labour party would like to return. That is why I welcome the fresh thinking that the Government have applied through the PFI. Surely out there in the market, there are consortia that would like to bid to provide new district general hospitals, with the magnificent construction work that they involve; to provide estate management and management of the buildings, catering, cleaning and maintenance—everything that is required. That would be provided at a cost to the NHS, which would provide the doctors, nurses, medical administration and all that goes into making the NHS something of which people are proud.

In north-west Kent, we had five bidders to build, manage and run our district general hospital. Earlier this year, the Pentlands Healthcare group became the front runner to provide the hospital. It has provided a magnificent hospital on paper, which my constituents are looking at. It is not only excellent for the current population; it has immense scope for expansion as the Thames gateway developments bring thousands more residents into north-west Kent.

The PFI is wonderful for large capital projects, but it is hideously complex. Imagine the contracts running over 25 years, the disposal of current land holdings and all that that involves. That complexity needs the attention of Ministers to ensure that projects come through. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends in the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Department of the Environment for their positive interest and hard work in ensuring that this project will take place.

The Darenth Park hospital offers a magnificent opportunity for my constituents, so, in the spirit of Christmas, I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Ministers for what they have done. I would also like to ask them to keep up the pressure in the new year so that we can see bulldozers on that site soon constructing our new district general hospital—a hospital that has been possible only because of the Conservatives' PFI policy.

I should like to raise the subject of human rights in Punjab, as the chairman of the Punjab human rights sub-committee of the all-party human rights group in the House and also because it is my duty to express the concerns of the Sikh community of Gravesend and Northfleet in my constituency. That community has its roots in the province of Punjab.

Hon. Members will recall that, until 1947, the House was responsible for the affairs of India. When we departed from India, the then Viceroy, Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, negotiated the settlement for withdrawal jointly with the successor authorities of Mr. Nehru and the Congress party. He did so in the clear knowledge that Nehru and the Congress party had given undertakings to the Sikh leaders, particularly those in the province of Punjab. Subsequent to those negotiations and independence, the Sikh community was betrayed over the assurances that it had been given. The sour atmosphere generated then led to the tensions and misery that finally led to the desecration of the golden temple at Amritsar.

The past few years have been highlighted by continuing incidents of police brutality in Punjab, which has been responded to by zealots, who range from those whose objective is civil rights in Punjab to those who have had enough and are calling for an independent state of Khalistan.

In common with all disputes of that kind, the victims are invariably ordinary people, in this case the villagers throughout the rural areas of the province of Punjab. In recent months there have been signs of improvement, but great concern is still being expressed about abductions and disappearances. I would like to draw the House's attention to two particular examples.

The first is that of Jaswant Singh Khalra, the general secretary of the human rights wing of the Akali Dal party, a Sikh political party. He has not been seen since September 1995, when he was abducted by the police. The police have since refused to reveal Mr. Khalra's whereabouts, and he has not been brought before a magistrate or charged with an offence. It is precisely that type of disappearance, of which there are many precedents in history, that causes so much concern. The second example is that of Mr. Harjit Singh, a 34-year-old, who, last year, was picked up by 10 plain-clothes policemen in Punjab. He was abducted and subsequently brutalised.

Those examples are just two from a wide variety of cases. I believe that the House should make it clear to the Indian authorities that we expect the Indian Government to comply with their obligations to protect human rights under the international covenant on civil and political rights. They should ensure that all allegations of torture, extra-judicial execution, custodial death, custodial rape and disappearance are fully investigated by an impartial and independent body. It is high time that India, which is deemed to be a country of the future, cleared up its own back yard and saw that human rights were protected.

My constituency is part of the Thames gateway. For many decades, north-west Kent has depended on heavy industry for its future. In the past 20 years, those heavy industries have mostly disappeared, although those connected with paper and cement still remain, but they rely on high technology and a highly skilled but far smaller work force than used to be the case. That is why we welcomed so much the enthusiasm with which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Thames gateway scheme and the vision with which that has been carried forward by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. The aura of the projects that the Government are encouraging offers great hope for the future. Those opportunities are already being realised, which explains the rapid fall in unemployment in Gravesham in particular.

The decision taken some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to re-route the channel tunnel rail link obviously raised considerable environmental concerns in north-west Kent, with which we are still struggling. It also brought one overwhelming benefit, however, with the Government's decision to locate the international station at Ebbsfleet in north-west Kent. That has provided immense opportunities for new development. In fact, it has been estimated that, in time, 30,000 new jobs will be created. Transport links will also improve to the extent that my constituents, who currently suffer a 50-minute commute to London, will be able to travel from the Ebbsfleet domestic station to the capital in just 19 minutes. The development also means that a series of new roads will be built in north-west Kent, not least to the new district general hospital.

Much needs to be done. That is why I should particularly like to draw attention to the bid from Kent Thames-Side Grouping for the British Academy of Sport to be located in north-west Kent. In the past few days, the Department of National Heritage and the Sports Council have shortlisted the many bids received to 12. The bid from the Kent Thames-Side is particularly fascinating because the academy might be located on the Swanscombe peninsula on the River Thames. It would be close to Ebbsfleet international station. We have thousands of acres that could be developed for sport and consortium of interested local authorities, companies and the like, which have put together the magnificent bid.

The north-west Kent location is close to London and it has a unique advantage because, were the academy to be based at Ebbsfleet, which borders my constituency, it would supplement magnificently the sporting facilities of the capital, and enhance its bid to stage the 2004 Olympics. I hope that my right hon. Friends will pay close attention to the bid from Kent Thames-Side, which would so enhance sporting opportunities for local people in my constituency as well as the bid from London to stage the 2004 Olympics.

Considerable concern has been expressed about the access routes in north-west Kent because of the construction of the high-speed rail link and the associated major civil engineering projects, which are due to start within the next few months as a result of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which recently passed through all its stages in the House.

The principal projects will be the tunnel underneath the River Thames from the Swanscombe peninsula on one side of Northfleet, and the construction of the Ebbsfleet international station on the other side of Northfleet. It does not take much imagination to envisage the heavy goods vehicles that will roll through the town between the two major construction sites, because currently there is no alternative to passing through the centre of the old town. For that reason, I and many of my constituents have campaigned for an effective Northfleet town bypass, known in the bureaucratic world as the south Thames-side development route, phase 4.

Many hon. Members know all about backing bids for town bypasses—there must be thousands of such projects throughout the country and dozens of them in Kent alone. What has made the difference to my Northfleet constituents is the channel tunnel rail link and the two major civil engineering projects to which I have referred. Without the bypass, the lives of my constituents will increasingly become a nightmare. It was for those reasons that the project was worked up, but I have to draw the House's attention to the crass incompetence of Kent county council in its handling of the project.

Almost two years ago, my constituents attended a public exhibition at St. Botolph's school, Northfleet, to see the details of the bypass project. The council's meandering slowness since then means that there are no signs that we shall have the bypass before construction starts on the two big civil engineering projects. In those two years, the council has meandered through designing the project; its department of highways has applied to the department of planning for permission to build the bypass; and it has considered how to accumulate the land and involved itself in a hideously complex and delayed process of land swaps between the Labour-controlled borough council and the Lib-Lab-controlled county council.

After two years, we find that the council has landed itself in such disputes over land that the whole matter has had to be referred to the Department of Transport for a public inquiry. I do not know how long that inquiry will take, and I hope that Ministers at the Department of Transport will do all they can to speed up that process, which has so far been handled with outrageous incompetence.

Nearly four years ago, I was distressed by Kent county council passing out of Conservative councillors' hands into the control of a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. My only consolation was that several of the leaders of Kent county council's Labour group sat for Gravesham county divisions. I thought that they would at least give our town priority and get the bypass project through. Not a bit of it. Two years ago, the Government made it plain that they would accept two new highway projects in Kent, so those clever county councillors put the bypass in third position on their list. One year ago, the Government said they would accept one new project in Kent, so the councillors put the bypass in second position. The result was that the project failed, two years in a row.

I was delighted when my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport gave £1.5 million of special credit approval to get the project going. The Government clearly perceived the need for the bypass, and my constituents were grateful for the Government's interest in the matter. My constituents are now appalled that, because Kent county council has got itself into such a mess, that £1.5 million must be returned, unspent, to the Government. Given the time requirements of the inquiry, it is unlikely that any more money will be spent in the coming financial year. I hope that Ministers will examine this matter, highlight the incompetence of the Labour councillors who control Kent county council and exert pressure so that progress can be made.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these four, admittedly parochial, issues that are of great concern to my constituents.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. In the time available for the remainder of the debate, no fewer than 11 hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. With a little co-operation, all of them might be successful.

10.13 am

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I value the time for this debate, so I hope that I shall be able to express my views succinctly.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have been Members of this House long enough to know that one of the Government's habits is to wait until the House is nearing the recess and then provide—especially on the last day—a series of written answers containing a great deal of politically sensitive and difficult material. That is not a new trick, but is one that the current Government have played with total effrontery and, in the past few years, with an increasing lack of respect. I do not think that the Leader of the House is aware of the extent to which individual Ministries save up for the last day those matters that they do not know how to present and put them all on the Order Paper at the last minute. A classic example is the difficulties relating to the important issue of railway pensions.

I am an individual member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and I remember that, during the passage of the Railways Act 1993, there was a considerable altercation with the Government, who accepted that they could not deal with the existing pension fund by simply taking all the money into the Treasury and keeping it for their own purposes. The Government did not make it clear, however, that future pensioners of the railway industry would have to see large sums of money being taken out of the pension funds and used as sweeteners for private buyers of existing assets, yet that is happening on an increasing scale.

It is deplorable that those who contribute to a pension fund—either taxpayers or fund members—should suddenly discover that their moneys are to be used, not to enhance benefits for individual pensioners, but to improve the tax position of someone who is already buying assets that will be of considerable use in the future. When we examine carefully what has happened in respect of railway franchises, we see that some of them do not make sense—they are being lauded as of such advantage to taxpayer that the incoming companies will end up in a negative position: in other words, they will be paying the Government for the holding of the franchise.

I am a very trusting creature, but when I read that, my little brain thinks, "That's interesting—why should a commercial firm want to take over assets in that manner and be prepared to pay a considerable sum to the Government at the end of its period of tenure?" Then I read the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office on the award of the first three passenger rail franchises. We have not yet reached the stage at which we can use visual aids, which will come as a great relief to most hon. Members; but it is important that hon. Members should know that when I refer to the report, I am talking about figure 8 on page 33, which sets out the subsidy payable to British Rail in 1995–96 and to the franchise companies from 1996 onwards.

Figure 8 shows that there is an impressive fall in the amount of subsidy for the three franchises, so taxpayers should be delighted that they are, in theory, getting such good value for money. Then one suddenly realises that, if those same companies know that they are to be given access to large sums of pension fund money, which they can use as they want in terms of contribution holidays, the reality does not match the appearance on paper. Far from the companies being disadvantaged in any way by having to pay contributions to the Government, they will have access to large pension surpluses to which they did not contribute and for which they are not responsible, but which the companies can use to subsidise their businesses.

In my opinion, that is sharp practice, and I think that members of the pension funds will agree with me. If there are surpluses in a pension fund, as there are in the British Rail fund, those surpluses should be used to enhance the benefits of those who contributed to the fund and those who work in the industry. They should not be consistently used to subsidise private companies.

That is an extremely unhealthy and unacceptable practice, which the Government have kept very quiet about. They have not sought to draw it to the attention of people considering the effects of the Bill that became the Railways Act 1993 or of people who currently contribute to pension funds. If it is such an excellent process, why is that the case? Why have not the Government simply said, "One of the deals that we shall make in unloading what we regard as loss-making services on to the private sector is that we shall give large sweeteners—£500 million sweeteners at every level—so that the franchise companies do jolly well out of it, whatever happens"?

There are fears—which, sadly, I believe to be well founded—that some companies will take the money from the public service obligation, bank it or squirrel it away and, when the going gets rough, find it very easy to go bankrupt. The 1993 Act provides that, if that does happen and private companies go bankrupt, the taxpayer, who owned the original asset, who lost that asset to a private company and who is sweetening that private company's finances, must pay for replacement services. Whichever way one looks at it, the taxpayer is caught coming and going, and that is reprehensible.

I am afraid that several nasty little bombs are sitting upstairs in the Press Gallery, waiting for the Government. When access is given to information, nasty questions are always tucked away in the Press Gallery long before they are given to Members of Parliament, and we might have a nasty habit of raising those matters on the Floor of the House just before we rise. That will not happen, because we shall not have the information.

I nevertheless believe that the Leader of the House has a specific task for the recess—to say firmly to some Ministers that, irrespective of party involvement, it does them and the House of Commons no good if that practice becomes more widespread. It is not helpful when Ministers say in a text that they hand out to the press, "We are thinking of privatising the Coastguard," and then, when Members such as myself question that, the Government say, "We did not mean that. The Minister did not say that. It is one of the things that he is thinking about, but he did not say it even though it was in the text." When Ministers of the Crown send out press notices and texts, if they do not intend to do what they have said they will do, they should tell everyone why they have changed their minds.

The acquisition of people's surplus pension funds will not damage the employees of the old British Rail—who, luckily, were protected by the action of Members of Parliament who made public what was likely to happen—but future contributors under the privatised system will find their surplus pension funds used by their employers in a way that they are not aware of and would not support.

The House of Commons has a duty to examine more closely the behaviour of the present Government. Their stewardship is reprehensible, and I hope that we shall be able to alert the public to the appalling things that happen daily.

10.23 am

Mr. David Amess (Basildon)

Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three matters, but first I shall mention some pieces of good news.

It is splendid news that unemployment has fallen below 2 million—I understand that the precise figure is 1,938,000. Obviously, every person who wants to work and cannot find employment is a human tragedy, but the House will rejoice that unemployment has fallen below 2 million for the first time. I understand that there has also been an unexpected boost to retail sales and that the markets are reacting extremely well.

The second piece of good news is that the present Conservative Government introduced the national lottery. Increasingly, not enough credit is given to the Government for the amount of money given to various organisations in our constituencies. I am delighted, therefore, that yesterday I received a letter headed, "Third grant programme: Health, Disability and Care", telling me that the Basildon and District Crossroads organisation—a community-based respite service for carers of people suffering from short-term memory loss—will be given £118,477. That is magnificent. I know that all the local carers will be delighted.

The third piece of good news was the ten-minute rule Bill—the Abortion (Amendment) Bill—which I successfully introduced yesterday, to amend the Abortion Act 1967. I was delighted that it received an unopposed First Reading. I was slightly confused, however. An Opposition Member spoke for seven minutes against the Bill. There was a loud call of "Division" and I appointed Tellers but, for some reason, no Opposition Tellers were appointed.

I know that there is some difficulty between the Government and the Opposition at the moment, but I am confused. An Opposition Member spoke for seven minutes and any number of Members entered the Chamber to oppose the Bill. One would have thought that two Tellers could have been appointed from the people who opposed the Bill, but no doubt—

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I got in a bit of trouble about that yesterday. The hon. Gentleman is constantly confused about such situations. The voice of the hon. Member opposing the ten-minute rule Bill motion is what matters. There does not necessarily have to be a Division.

Mr. Amess

That is an interesting explanation; obviously we will rearrange our business in the House in future. I believe that the general public would draw the conclusion—

Mrs. Dunwoody

I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, having made a slight clown of himself yesterday, should choose to keep bringing the matter up. As it suits him to do so, however, let me explain, because he obviously does not understand. Yesterday he announced a date on which he believes that his Bill will be considered. If there is a debate, the House will have no trouble in considering what he proposes and voting then. This is a serious matter, and if the Bill were anything other than an extraordinarily self-seeking bit of publicity, the hon. Gentleman would be aware of that and would behave sensibly.

Mr. Amess

I do not need lessons from the hon. Lady. To suggest that many well-intentioned people throughout the country who supported the Bill yesterday thought that it was a clown is deeply distasteful. The hon. Lady knows that it was gutlessness on the part of several individuals who did not want the recorded vote, and that is a disgrace.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

Does my hon. Friend believe that the true explanation is as follows? Yesterday we were discussing one of the most important questions that could come before the House—not an issue to be taken lightly, as Opposition Members said earlier. It concerns the value, the sanctity, the dignity of human life, and I am ashamed that Opposition Members should speak as they have. Is it not a fact that the Opposition did not appoint Tellers, did not want to vote yesterday, because they were, rightly, ashamed of what they were doing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must inform the House that I was in the Chair on that occasion yesterday, and I ruled on the points of order then. Nothing has changed between then and now.

Mr. Amess

The first matter I want to raise is about a constituent in prison. No doubt we all have constituents in prison, and never before, in the years that I have been in the House, have I raised a specific matter concerning a constituent in prison. I have spent an enormous amount of time, however, on that constituent's circumstances; the wife visits my surgery every week, as does my constituent's brother, who is a constituent of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I shall raise one or two points about that gentleman's circumstances.

Just this morning I received a letter from my constituent's brother in the following terms: Mr. X has been wrongly convicted by the use of fabricated evidence. This was 'observation logs' supposedly contemporaneously written by the police and since been shown to be provably false". The complaints investigation bureau, he says, was granted a dispensation allowing it not to conduct further inquiries because of a 12-month time limitation statute—this despite the seriousness of the allegations, which were that the police had fabricated evidence and had lied on oath.

The point of most concern has been the refusal of the Post Office for more than a year now to answer the question whether a reward was paid following the rejection of my constituent's appeal. This matter greatly disturbs the family. I have tried to get an answer out of the Post Office; we are all busy people, but I have yet to receive a letter signed by the chairman. The last letter that I received stated: As Mr. X will no doubt have made you aware, he was arrested by armed police officers of the South East Regional Crime Squad and was prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for his actions. The Post Office Security and Investigation Services were involved in the case to safeguard the interests of the Post Office and to assist if necessary with any specialist or commercially confidential information. Inquiries have been made at Sir Michael's request; however it transpires that the Post Office does not possess a transcript of the trial in this case. In the circumstances I am afraid that I cannot assist you with regard to any instructions that the trial judge may have had in relation to rewards. As I have said, my constituents are greatly worried. I have a responsibility to my constituent who is in prison, and I intend to carry the case forward. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can do anything to help me, I will greatly appreciate that.

Next I want to consider a trip that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and I made to Brussels a few weeks ago to visit the Commissioner responsible for structural funds and the Fisheries Commissioner. We took with us a local fisherman and a local business person, and we had a very successful meeting. I had never met Commissioner Bonino before; contrary to what I expected, my meeting with her was a complete delight. We raised four points with her. She listened carefully to them all and responded positively.

By contrast, the behaviour of the local Labour Member of the European Parliament was quite extraordinary. He has had every opportunity to help local fishermen. When he learned from the newspapers of our trip, he wrote to us giving us "permission" to visit Brussels. It really is going a bit far to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I needed this man's permission to visit Brussels. He also said that he would be happy to join us, but my hon. Friend and I were not happy to have the MEP along with us for our deliberations.

Commissioner Bonino told us that, during the two years this man has been a Member of the European Parliament, he has had every opportunity to meet her; she would be happy to meet him, she said, any time, any place—yet he has never chosen to arrange such a meeting. By asking to join my hon. Friend and me, he was clearly trying to get some free publicity. I leave the House to judge his actions.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that she was disappointed with announcements by Ministers. I, on the other hand, received this morning a letter from the Minister responsible for our fisheries who has been to visit our part of Essex. He is trying to do everything he can to secure extra funding for dredging the Thames estuary and to help the cockles industry.

My last point relates to local government in Essex, where controversy reigns between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Indeed, they have had a great falling out. I understand that my right hon. Friend may refer to the issue later this morning. A Liberal county councillor in Brentwood is so fed up with all the arguing that he has joined the Conservative party.

Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) received a letter enclosing a Christmas card that one of his constituents had received from Basildon district council building control. That constituent has apparently only ever dealt with the council once—over a building application two years ago. The House will already know that Basildon district council has spent huge sums of money over the years on frivolous activities such as sending people Valentine cards. It would appear that the nonsense continues.

It has been widely reported that a well known former sporting personality who used to be active on the left wing of the Labour party has now joined the Liberal party. Last week the Liberal party organised a press conference to celebrate the fact. But the falling out between Labour and Liberal parties has meant that this new Liberal candidate has felt compelled to write to the local press. It is said, he argues, that in Basildon I failed to win an injunction to overturn the party's women-only shortlist. This is untrue. I did invoke an injunction on the Basildon Constituency Labour Party alleging irregularities in the formation of the new CLP. Delegates had not been re-elected in accordance with Labour Party rules, and therefore meetings of the general committee were invalid. The parties to these proceedings were able to reach a settlement of all matters which arose from party procedures adopted following boundary changes in Essex. No admission of liability was made. The matter has now become academic since the 1995 annual meeting of the branches and of the CLP to which new delegates have been appointed. Both sides recognise the futility of further litigating what is a moot point. Financial aspects of the proceedings have been settled to the satisfaction of the parties. It was also claimed by Labour Party central office that I was still a fully paid up member of the party. This is also untrue. I left the Labour Party at the beginning of the year. However, this did not deter central office from expelling me from a party I did not belong to. The Conservative party is often attacked for its internal difficulties, but our differences over Europe, honest and straightforward as they are, bear no relation to the local difficulties in Essex between the Labour and Liberal parties. It all goes to show what broad churches those parties in Essex are.

The Liberals in Essex have made a complete farce of local transport by sending buses down Hobleythick lane; traffic movements on the Marine estate and the local fire station have also been badly handled. It is no good for the Liberals immediately to have a knee-jerk reaction about a local controversy, to jump on the bandwagon and then go completely quiet when their initial reaction is found to be wanting. In Hobleythick lane, a number of residents protested, but now we find that a number of residents want the buses. Initially there were proposals to change traffic movements—

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which you can protect the floor of the House of Commons from this trivia?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman may think it is trivia, but so far the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has been in order.

Mr. Amess

None of these matters are trivial to my constituents.

On the subject of traffic movements on the Marine estate, the Liberal council first announced that they wanted to alter traffic movements. There was a huge protest, and now the Lib-Lab council have had to back-track on that.

The final fiasco has been over proposed changes to the local fire service. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) attended what he thought was a public meeting last week at county hall, but he was not allowed to speak. Essex county council, which is controlled by the Liberals and the Labour party, has proposed many changes. After the local government settlement, we have a 4.6 per cent. increase in funding for the fire service, but the council wants to shift resources from the south of the county to the middle of the county. The council wishes to downgrade the fire station on Canvey island in my hon. Friend's constituency and it wants to close Leigh fire station for the first time in 100 years. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is concerned about that prospect.

I will visit Basildon fire station later this week and I am concerned about the fact that the foam tender from Basildon will be relocated to Corringham. It is bit of a cheek for local Liberal activists to say that Essex county council's proposals are terrible and that it is all the fault of the Government because of underfunding. That is not the case. The council has been given more money than it has ever been given before and the fire brigade committee is headed by a Liberal county councillor.

Dr. Spink

I wish to clarify one point. The Liberal group on Essex county council accept that the purpose of the proposals is not to save money or make cuts, but to redistribute existing resources. The move is not Government-driven and all the political parties accept that point.

Mr. Amess

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not have time to answer all my points this morning, perhaps he could get the various Departments to write to me.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Hon. Members will recall that, a few moments ago, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that many hon. Members wished to take part in the debate, and I asked them to consider that. So far, in some cases, my request has been ignored. I hope for some co-operation from now on.

10.42 am

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I shall be as brief as I can, but in contrast to some of the other contributions, I wish to refer to a matter of great national concern—indeed, a multi-million pound scandal, which I hope the Government will address urgently during the recess. I refer to the over-30-months cattle cull and the lessons that I hope Ministers are now learning for the new accelerated slaughter scheme that the Minister announced on Monday.

In a question to the Minister on Monday, I put this point: paragraph 24 of the consultation paper suggests that the way in which the slaughter will be allocated to abattoirs will be similar to that under the 30-months scheme. Is he aware of the real concerns about the way in which a small number of abattoirs have profiteered and made a killing from the scheme? The new scheme must be put out to competitive tender."—[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 636.] The Minister replied to an earlier part of my question, but made no response whatever to that latter point. For that reason, I seek the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in pressing Ministers to take a new look at the lessons of the over-30-months scheme.

Hon. Members will recall that the Minister announced the over-30-months scheme on 28 March. He took an arbitrary age with innumerable practical difficulties. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Com mittee had recommended that the 30-months age limit should be used for the removal of specified bovine offals. The use of the limit for the whole carcase to be removed from the human food chain was a political decision and had no scientific basis.

An important article, entitled "How the Government turned the beef crisis into a £2.4bn gravy train", was published in the Daily Mail on December 5. It was written by Dr. Richard North who, as hon, Members will know, is an internationally recognised food safety analyst, to whom we are all grateful on this and many other issues. He wrote: The scheme has devastated farmers, and taxpayers have been major losers but, as will be revealed on a Channel 4 programme tonight, a new scandal has emerged. A small group of businessmen who own some of Britain's largest slaughterhouses have literally been making a killing out of the scheme, amassing windfall profits estimated at more than £200 million. To understand how such a situation came about, we must recall the events immediately after Health Secretary Stephen Dorrell announced to the House of Commons on March 20 the link between Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and BSE. He cited a recommendation from … SEAC that—since some cattle over 30 months old might possibly be harbouring BSE infectivity, although not in the meat—all such cattle should be boned out after killing, before their meat could be sold. This process would allow the removal of potentially infected parts. Immediately Douglas Hogg banned the sale of meat from all cattle over 30 months old, until a debonine scheme could be arranged. It is clear that that was to be a temporary scheme. However, just as Ministry officials were about to send out instructions to specifically licensed abattoirs, cutters and butchers, there was a change of heart.

Under pressure from the National Farmers Union, itself blackmailed by the burger giants and the supermarkets, the Minister buckled and the over-30-months scheme for the whole carcase became permanent, not temporary. Richard North's article continues: The overpayment scandal began when, faced with the massive problem of slaughtering millions of cattle, the Government bypassed the established practice of awarding contracts by tender. It gave 20 slaughterhouses—out of 470 in the UK—the rights to do most of the killing. Although some independent slaughterhouses bid £20 per head, MAFF ignored them and awarded the favoured few a lucrative 'provisional' fee of £87 per head, plus the value of the hide, bringing the effective price to more than £100—a £100 million cash bonanza. That was but the start of the scandal. Almost immediately, despite pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House, instead of allocating the competitive tendering bids to those who had submitted them, the Government gave the cull contracts to only 21 plants, although 72 had been approved and some 200 were eligible.

In the debate that I led on 13 May on the continuing delay and confusion that arose from the cattle cull scheme, the Minister mentioned, in answer to questions, the 21 that are in it at the moment, but the larger number which I hope will come into it".—[Official Report, 13 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 703.] In other words, other abattoirs might become involved, but no others were added for many weeks.

On 21 May, as we all know, the Prime Minister declared the infamous and totally counter-productive beef war, but surreptitiously the same afternoon he issued a press statement removing the over-30-months scheme from the control of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and giving it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

At the same time, the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers issued a memorandum to its members that stated: Rumours and gossip verging on the scurrilous are widespread. If for short term reasons these are wound up to produce political pressure on Ministers, we are concerned that the option remains for them to take emergency powers, requisition a small number of plants and take total control of the cull themselves". In other words, Ministers were not in control.

During that period, both the big abattoirs and the Ministers were blaming the renderers for what had gone wrong. However, it seems that the renderers were asking only for through-put seven days a week for which they could cater. The smaller abattoirs were never told about that—in fact, they were bidding blind. Many of them would have been eager to participate and could have filled the Monday, Friday and weekend gaps.

There appears to be a hidden agenda. During that time, the industry was being restructured by default: bigger units were given greater responsibilities and bigger and bigger profits. We should remember that earlier this year, before the BSE bombshell, the Meat and Livestock Commission—which was being pressurised by larger abattoirs—was aiming for the "broilerisation of beef", as it is called in the United States.

At the end of the beef war, on 24 June, the Prime Minister said: The targets that we have set are ambitious. It is now up to us in this country—the farming and ancillary industries and the Government—to ensure that we meet them. The point is that this timetable is essentially in our hands."—[Official Report, 24 June 1996: Vol. 280, c. 22.] The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food subsequently back-tracked on that unequivocal statement in the House, and have done so again this week.

The Prime Minister was confident because he said that the OTM cull would be completed by October, but that did not happen. The main reason for the failure to proceed with the so-called accelerated slaughter scheme was that the abattoirs could not cope with any more animals. An insufficient number of abattoirs were forced to try to conduct the cull. The idea was that the Minister would draw up a formal working document after Florence. However, we still have not seen it.

On 17 July, I took a small deputation comprising abattoir and incineration managers from the south-west to see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He assured us that the OTM cull delays and the backlog would be swiftly removed. Despite his explicit promise, that did not occur.

In August, the Government's auditor, Coopers and Lybrand, produced its second report—which remains unpublished. It said that the economic cost was £21 per beast and not the £87-plus being paid to abattoirs. It also pointed out that abattoirs could make a further £20 to £25 from the hides. Following a threatened strike by Northern Ireland abattoirs, Ministers caved in again and agreed to a £41 minimum payment and no backdating. It is outrageous that the Coopers and Lybrand report has not been published. At the very least, the Public Accounts Committee must see it urgently.

From 23 October, farmers faced a 10 per cent. cut in the amounts that they received. The reduction was initiated by United Kingdom Ministers in Brussels and was aggravated by a revaluation of the green pound thereafter.

On 21 November, there was the curious case of the missing corpses. I pointed out to the Minister that, although the cull was progressing, nobody could put a figure on the number of carcases that were being refrigerated. Despite more questions on Monday, we still do not know how many carcases are in refrigerated storage. The Minister has not dealt with that huge problem, which also has lessons for the accelerated slaughter scheme.

While the farmers were forced to take a cut, not so the big abattoirs. There was a renegotiation in November which, again, was not published. Richard North's article—which succinctly reports what happened—states: The only legal buyers, the slaughterhouses carrying out the disposals, were offering at times prices of £200 less than the official compensation rate. Millions flowed into their coffers by this route. This exercise has evaporated now that the backlog has all but been cleared. But the slaughterhouses have not had to fall back on the profits of a mere £41 killing fee. Last month"— that is, November— they renegotiated their fee structure, bringing them up to £131 for some animals—backdated to August 26. Thus, as the animals pour through the slaughterhouses of the favoured few, millions more are pouring into the owners' bank accounts. The strangest thing about this whole episode, the most bizarre in the history of farming, is that it is continuing at all. Already it has cost the equivalent of a penny in the pound on income tax. The cull could have been completed and the registration process introduced months ago. Why was it not done in July, August or September? Ministers now tell us that, from 1 April 1997, abattoirs will have to submit competitive tender bids, but only for the programme after that date. We hope that the new programme will be well under way by then.

The Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme entitled "Making a Killing", which was screened on 5 December, lifted the lid on the cull shambles and the scandal. Many hon. Members and I have tabled a motion demanding that the Public Accounts Committee urgently investigates what has occurred. If we do not know what is happening to taxpayers' money, there is a real danger that the European Union Court of Auditors will want to examine the finances. It could remove all the funding from Brussels that supports the programme.

For example, if the 15 per cent. from Brussels—which has not been paid yet—is removed, British taxpayers will have to pay about £300 million extra. Ministers provided no substantial answers on the Channel 4 programme. However, the Intervention Board said that it was confident that there was "no significant overpayment". What is "significant"?

There is a footnote to this sorry saga. Since he was charged with conducting the programme, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has not spoken in a debate on the subject in the House. He has not answered questions or made a statement about the matter in the House. Is he to mastermind the accelerated scheme that the Minister of Agriculture announced on Monday and is he answerable to the House for the huge sums of taxpayers' money that he is spending?

10.57 am

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

Unemployment has fallen again by about 92,000. I have not seen that figure confirmed in writing but, if it is accurate, it means that unemployment has fallen from 2,030,000 to 1,938,000. We should celebrate that achievement throughout the country, because unemployment affects people dramatically.

While we are celebrating our excellent economic performance, we should contrast it with the performance on jobs and employment of countries in continental Europe, who are not performing as well as us. Perhaps that has something to do with their minimum wage, the social chapter, inflexible employment structures and non-wage labour costs, which are much higher than ours. We must resist placing such burdens on our industry, thereby making it less competitive and less flexible. We must not follow the policies that the Opposition parties advocate, which would destroy our competitiveness, our jobs and our economy.

Castle Point has shared in the good news. Unemployment peaked at about 4,600 during my time as the Member of Parliament and is now well below 2,500— a fall of more than 40 per cent. I cannot claim to have been instrumental in bringing about that decrease, but I can claim that the Government have been instrumental in setting economic conditions of low inflation, low interest rates, high inward investment and a highly competitive and flexible labour market and economy. That is why jobs have been created in Castle Point and why I am sure that the people of Castle Point will give their verdict at the next election on Opposition policies that would destroy and reverse the trend of falling unemployment in the constituency.

I come now to an equally serious matter. Mr. Geoff Lythgoe dedicated the last years of his life to building the business opportunities for the physically handicapped centre on Canvey island. He was a good man: he was community spirited and spent much of his time working for disadvantaged people. Sadly, he died in the middle of this year. I visited him in hospital just before he died, and he expressed his concern about the future of the centre. I helped Geoff s widow, Joan, to put in a bid to the national lottery. It was successful, and an award of £75,000 was made yesterday.

I am proud to have been associated with such a wonderful man, and proud of the Government's national lottery policy. That policy was opposed by 183 Opposition Members, who voted against the Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill. I am proud to have voted for that policy, which has created 100,000 jobs throughout the country and, I hope, will now create a few more on Canvey island in my constituency.

I want to focus on Canvey island, and to refer to the three issues that I raised on the front page of the Canvey Island Times before prior to the last election. I pressed for an independent sixth form on Canvey island. My Labour opponent fought vociferously against that initiative. The Liberal Democrat candidate was also against it. I have good news for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because year after year you have had to sit in that Chair and endure me batting on about a sixth form for Canvey island. You will not have to hear that again, because we won.

The Conservative Government awarded a sixth form to Canvey island last week. I am proud to have been associated with that battle. I am only sorry that the local Labour party so forcefully tried to prevent that facility being made available to the young people on Canvey island, and to the community of nearly 40,000 people. Labour has betrayed my constituents on Canvey island.

The second matter that I raised was the provision of an accident unit; I suppose that it could be called a cottage hospital for Canvey island. I pushed for that, and said on the front page of the Canvey Island Times that I was Totally in favour of an accident unit for Canvey". Neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats mentioned this health provision for Canvey island, either in the front-page report or during the election campaign.

On 19 March, the health authority said: Following representations from Dr. Spink, we are investing in a package of services including an outpatient clinic and X-ray service in the former Council offices on Canvey. I am proud to have been associated with the provision of that clinic. I shall speak in more detail about it in a moment.

The third matter that I raised in the front-page report in the Canvey Island Times before the last general election was the improvement in investment and rolling stock on the London, Tilbury and Southend line, which was then known as the misery line. It was unreliable, not punctual and a misery for my constituents. Investment of £180 million has been provided for resignalling and track improvements. Prism Rail, which took on the franchise, is to place a £150 million order for new rolling stock.

Two weeks ago, I had a photograph taken with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on one of the cascaded 10-year-old trains, which are replacing the 35-year-old trains. He has brought forward the policy of privatisation, which has enabled this investment. Furthermore, £14 million will be spent on stations, such as Benfleet station, to improve access for disabled people and to improve information and security. If people feel safer on the trains, they will be encouraged to use them. Those investments are to be welcomed.

It is a little surprising that Labour councillors—who fought tooth and nail against the privatisation that has led to those investments—should now try to associate themselves with the health clinic on Canvey island and with the investments by the privatised railway.

The health clinic on Canvey island will open in January next year. It will provide facilities for gynaecology; neurology; general surgery; orthopaedics; rheumatology; dermatology; urology; diabetes; blood tests; X-ray; ear, nose and throat; and midwifery. Facilities for ophthalmology and oncology, which deals with cancer, will be provided later in the year. My constituents deserve those facilities, and they have been provided entirely by Government money.

I am proud to have delivered on those three election promises for Canvey island. If I am determined and outspoken when I am fighting for Canvey island, so be it: that is why the people of Canvey island voted for me, and why they will vote for me again.

The cottage hospital is provided by the Southend-on-Sea hospital trust and the district health authority from Government money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I pressed the Minister for that extra money. We make no apologies for fighting hard for it.

I shall now refer to some matters that have not gone quite so well for Canvey island. The exit road from Canvey island is high on my list of priorities. It was high on the county council's list of priorities until the county council was taken over by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. They control the council and have now put the exit road from Canvey island down the list of priorities.

The exit road is not needed just for convenience and to alleviate congestion; it is required for safety, because Canvey island is a special case. The Labour borough council has approved developers' plans. It should not have done that: it is proving to be the developers' friend, which is very sad. I fought against the de Savary land application that went to appeal and which the Secretary of State called in. The inspector found in favour of the applicant, but I fought on and went to the Secretary of State, who eventually supported me and turned down the application.

It is sad that Labour councillors are not prepared to back me and enable me to fight to prevent the new development proposals. They are proving themselves the developers' friends by approving the development against the wishes of the people. Such developments destroy our environment and communities. They overdevelop our communities and put too much burden on our infrastructure—schools, libraries and sewage works. Moreover, many jobs will be destroyed if an inappropriate, major, out-of-town shopping unit is built.

I come now to the fire station, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon has already mentioned. I shall cover this important matter in some detail.

Mr. Flynn

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have asked hon. Members to be brief. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 11 minutes and now says that he is going into greater detail. He will prevent several Opposition Members from making a speech. That is selfish and an abuse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I had hoped that my intervention would enable all hon. Members to speak if they so wished. I have no control over the length of hon. Members' speeches; they are responsible for that.

Dr. Spink

I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall move on apace. I hope to take less time than the average taken by hon. Members this morning.

Councillors are seeking to close the full-time station on Canvey island, which would leave only a retained station with no full-time cover. It would be manned by part-time firefighters, who, in an emergency, would be called out to the fire station from their homes and work if they were available. Councillors state that this is not a cost-cutting measure, but is purely an attempt to ensure that fire resources across the county are most effectively deployed.

The Home Office has confirmed to me that to close the station or to convert a full-time station into a retained station would require section 19 approval. I have already contacted Lady Blatch, and I shall be doing all that I can to put the case for keeping Canvey island fire station as a full-time station. It should not be closed.

Councillors say that they arrived at their recommendation following assessment of the standards relating to risk, response times, distances and the number of call-outs for engines. Those are interesting statistics, but it would be breathtakingly naive to fail to take account of the special circumstances that exist on Canvey island. In regard to risk, councillors now claim that people on Canvey island are not concerned about flooding; yet, according to a recent constituency-wide survey published in the "Westminster Report", people said that flood defence was one of the two top local issues, equalled only by the reduction in council tax. I can only conclude that the statistic has been misrepresented, because people on Canvey island are concerned about flooding—as anyone would be who lived there in 1953, when 58 people were drowned.

There are many special circumstances on Canvey island. It is a relatively isolated community, with a population approaching 40,000. During peak traffic times, when fires often occur, it is blocked off. That can happen at any time of day when there is a road accident: it has happened twice in recent times. Moreover, houses are tightly packed, and will be even more tightly packed following Labour councillors' recent decision to cram more houses in. That poses the risk that fires will spread and become major catastrophes. Furthermore, in comparison with the middle and the north of Essex, Canvey island is socially deprived, and the fire risk is much higher in areas of relative deprivation.

If councillors also close Leigh fire station—it is east of Hadleigh, while Canvey island is west of it—they will pull the fire engines from Hadleigh station in two different directions. That will affect the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon as well as mine, which is why he is fighting so fiercely to keep Leigh station open. The chief fire officer has admitted to me that the county council's recommendations would result in an increased call-out time, and therefore in a higher risk to life and limb on Canvey island. I do not wish to scaremonger, but that is a simple fact.

I am appalled that councillors are considering cutting our fire stations, when the Government have given them an extra £1,548,000 this year. That is an increase of 4.6 per cent., double the rate of inflation. There is no reason for the councillors to cut fire services; they should be improving them. South Essex is the centre of our wealth generating community in Essex—it is the centre of population—but, yet again, councillors at county hall in Chelmsford are deciding to move resources and facilities from the south of Essex to the centre and the north. They did the same with education and road projects throughout the last decade. I will fight to keep our full-time station open, and I am sure that the public are behind me.

Councillors cut funds for the flood warning systems on Canvey island by £4,000 last year. They also tried to get rid of 41 firemen, but, along with colleagues, I fought that successfully.

In recent times, Canvey island has done exceedingly well in some respects. There is the clinic, investment in the railways, the creation of jobs and the new sixth form—all developments that were entirely the Government's responsibility, and under their control. Where the Labour-controlled borough council and the Labour and Liberal-controlled county council have had responsibility—fire services, flood warning systems and the exit road are examples—Canvey island has done exceedingly badly. Councillors should hang their heads in shame; and I know that they greatly fear the next local elections.

10.14 am

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

I want to raise two issues. The first relates to London hospitals and health care services.

This is the beginning of winter. We never know what kind of weather we shall have in London or, indeed, elsewhere in the country, but we do know that, over the years, London has suffered from cuts in the national health service. Hospitals and wards have closed, and we have lost a great many beds.

My constituency contains St. George's hospital, Tooting. It is an excellent hospital, staffed by dedicated people, but they, along with staff in all the other London hospitals, are being put under increasing pressure to provide services. Last winter, we suffered on-going problems throughout the hospital, but especially in the accident and emergency department, where patients waited on trolleys for beds for hours on end.

Yesterday, the Evening Standard—which, to its credit, has played a major role in highlighting health care problems in London—published, on its front page, the headline "Emergency Wards Chaos", and, below that, the headline "Consultant quits in protest as crisis hits London hospitals". The report referred to my local health authority, the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth authority, which covers St. George's hospital. Chief consultant Dr. John Thurston was quoted as saying: This is the beginning of our winter rush. Last winter was the worst ever with a major crisis in south-west London and we are expecting to see the same thing happen this winter. Really, they should be expanding services rather than trying to run them down. It worries me and I don't want to be part of it. Dr. Thurston has now resigned from his position as chief consultant to work in another hospital outside the area.

Dr. Thurston went on to say: It seems extraordinary to me that just as we are coming up to winter, they are cutting down on services. Referring to an adjoining hospital that faces enormous problems, he said: Kingston cannot cope … They are inundated with work, as we are. Geoff Martin, of the watchdog service, London Health Emergency, said: We are scared because there aren't enough casualty departments in London now, and we are getting patients stacking up on trolleys in corridors. It is now December. May I ask the Leader of the House what action the Government will take now—not in the coming months of 1997—to ensure that accident and emergency services, not only in my health authority but throughout London, can meet the needs of Londoners? The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Secretary of State for Social Security, and he knows how vital the issue is to London. I ask him to convey to the present Secretary of State for Health the deep concern that I feel about my health authority. I am sure that my comments could be echoed by many other hon. Members representing London constituencies, irrespective of party.

The other issue that I wish to raise is connected with the fact that, this week, the Foreign Secretary made the first visit to Cyprus by such a senior Foreign Office Minister for more than 30 years. As chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group in the House, I welcome that visit. It was much heralded by pre-visit statements and, I understand, by an interview broadcast on the popular and respected London Greek radio station. Regrettably, however, the Foreign Secretary's visit lasted for less than 24 hours.

I have a copy of the Foreign Secretary's statement, and the 10 points highlighted by him during his visit. Much of this is well known, as it is based on United Nations statements and resolutions. I assume that the 10 points constitute the Government's policy on Cyprus. I fully support comments such as those about the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus and that there will be no right of petition or secession. I also support the security of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots being achieved by international guarantees and the membership of Cyprus of the European Union. No doubt many hon. Members fully support those aims.

Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary's statement did not include the important issue of the role of Turkey and Ankara. That is a key factor in any negotiations because of Turkey's continuing contacts with Mr. Denktas. Sir David Hannay, the British special envoy to Cyprus, regularly visits Turkey for discussions. We expect Turkey to play a major role in the negotiations. We must never lose sight of the fact that, a year ago, Turkey became a member of the European customs union. As we all know, there are trade-offs in politics. A country that achieves a desirable aim, then, should be helpful on issues on which it has influence, as does Turkey on Cyprus.

I welcome Turkey's involvement, but as one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus and a member of the Commonwealth, we must make it clear that, while Turkey is welcome in the negotiations because of the role that it can play, it will have no veto whatever, and certainly not on a settlement or on the issue of Cyprus's membership of the European Union.

Another issue that was not mentioned in the Foreign Secretary's statement was the demilitarisation of Cyprus. Mr. Clerides, the President of the Republic of Cyprus, has presented a plan for that and such developments are vital because, as we all know, there has been an enormous build-up of arms in Cyprus. It would be interesting to know the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Government on President Clerides' proposals on demilitarisation.

This week, the British press gave a great deal of coverage to the Foreign Secretary's visit. After 22 years of division in the island, we certainly want an honourable settlement. I wish the talks that start next year every success, but already there are demands from Mr. Denktash—as there have been since the events of 1974—in connection with Cyprus's membership of the European Union. He is hostile to that, and has views on sovereignty, security and territory in Cyprus. Yesterday The Independent stated: Turks pour cold water on Rifkind's Cyprus mission. That shows that, within days of the Foreign Secretary's visit to Cyprus, Turkey is not all that interested in the proposals. Is that true?

I hope that the Government will make their position plain, because hon. Members wish to see the rights of Greek and Turkish Cypriots fully honoured in any settlement. I hope that the Government and all parties represented in the House will make it clear to Mr. Denktash and to Turkey that they must play a constructive role that works towards a settlement. We should set out what we expect from next year's discussions.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the importance of the 1997 discussions. We need to know from the Government the role of the United States of America in those talks. The USA has had a special envoy in Cyprus, and the new Secretary of State, Mrs. Madeleine Albright, has a knowledge of Cyprus. The United States certainly has a role to play there, and I hope that we will work in full support of that country throughout the discussions. It knows how crucial are the issues surrounding a united Cyprus, especially because of the continuing tensions in the Mediterranean area, in which Cyprus is an important country.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. There are 45 minutes to go before the start of the winding-up speeches and, in that time, five hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be successful.

11.25 am

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made a powerful contribution on the issue of railway pensions and sweeteners. I say amen to what she said. I have a question which I hope will be answered during the winding-up speeches. Can the Leader of the House find out from the Treasury its assessment of the proposed saving to the taxpayer of this so-called sweetener operation? The same question could be asked about the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment. With that I couple the question, what will be the objective device that the building industry trusts? If the research facility is privatised, there will be deep questions about whether contractors would be willing to go to a private building organisation in the way that they have gone to the BRE in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) will know about that because he was engaged in running the council.

I wish to raise two matters, one of which is extremely urgent and relates to the dreadful events last night in Lima, Peru. It is not clear whether British subjects were involved. Sally Bowman seems to have got out and it appears that the British ambassador left before the raid started. The incident raises urgent issues, one of which is international violence. For the first time, possibly for hundreds of years, there is no war in the world. However, there is much interfactional violence ranging from events in Chechnya to, now, Lima. I speak as the vice-chairman of the all-party Latin America group. I went to Lima in 1984 and had to go through armed guards to the private house of the ex-Prime Minister, Manuel Ulloa, who was Prime Minister at the time of the Falklands war—which was the subject of my visit. There were also guards when we went to see President Belaunde Terry.

Peru is a violent country and the Shining Path organisation may be among the roughest, toughest and most determined terrorists on the face of the planet. I am sorry for the Government of Peru. This is an urgent matter for us all because there could easily be copycat incidents. First, I seek any kind of information from the Government about British involvement. Secondly, what measures are likely to be taken for the protection of our embassies' where such incidents, alas, are all too likely to happen? We must never underestimate the copycat factor in the light of such an incident. I ask for a statement on that matter.

My last point has been raised endlessly. Can some judgment be arrived at, at last, after eight long years, on the Lockerbie issue? For the first time, there will not be a service this year at Westminster abbey. It is eight years since, on a point of order, on that dreadful evening as the rumours filtered through, I asked about the crash of a huge airliner not far from my constituency.

Not only are the relatives still dissatisfied, but sanctions go on and on against Libya. That damages British industry. There is a project worth about $10 billion, but the beneficiaries are not British firms, as they might have been because many Libyan decision makers were educated at our technical colleges and universities and not, like those in many Arab countries, in the United States. The loss is Britain's. Apart from moral considerations, this is an urgent matter for British industry.

I recognise that, in the early 1980s, the Libyans were not angels. I accept the views of the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) and others who have had ministerial responsibility that arms went to the south of Ireland from Libya and that they should not have done, but that is different from saying that Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie crime. It is eight long years since it happened.

Before we come back on 13 January, could some serious consideration be given to the matter? In his answer to my written question yesterday, which has not yet appeared in Hansard, the Prime Minister said: The Arab League and some Arab Governments have pressed for sanctions to be lifted and a compromise reached on Lockerbie. That is also the view of many African Governments. President Mandela wrote a personal letter on the subject to the British Prime Minister. Before we come back, could some serious reflection be given to an on-going, deeply unsatisfactory position?

11.30 am

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who always raises matters of key importance and who campaigns persistently on issues. Many of us should learn from him about the way in which matters should be approached, especially in a debate such as this.

I wish to raise the issue of opencast mining in the north-east corner of Derbyshire. That issue affects the well-being of people in my constituency and in the Chesterfield and Bolsover constituencies.

I want to place this in the context of the pit closure programme. No pits remain in Derbyshire. A European Community document entitled "Commission Report on the Application of the Community Rules for State Aid to the Coal Industry in 1994", which has just been published, points out that, during 1994, British mines whose production costs were lower than those in other Member States and which were only slightly subsidised have had to be closed for lack of a market while high-cost mines are still being worked elsewhere in Europe—a situation which has helped push up the amount of aid per tonne in the Community very considerably". If we had only had a level playing field, we would still have pits and the communities around them in north Derbyshire, and we would not have the problems of opencast mining.

The north-east corner of Derbyshire is built on coal. There are great seams of coal from Leeds to Nottingham and Derby. North-east Derbyshire is in the middle of that. To the western side of the region, there used to be cutterills, drift mines and bell pits. To the east, the mines became deeper, so the ones that were closed were deeper mines, with the communities around them then being devastated. There is now great opencast potential in the region as we do not have the pits, and we are in danger of the green belts becoming black belts.

In the region, Budge, Fitzwise and H. J. Banks are the main operators seeking opencast avenues—and some are operating such mines already. Fitzwise and H. J. Banks have headquarters in my constituency. Arkwright is the major operator in the Bolsover constituency. Its operation involves 3.5 million tonnes and covers 417 hectares, which is a considerable development. In view of that, there should be no further development for some considerable time.

The cumulative impact of the operations—those where plans have been agreed and those where applications have been made—is considerable. I do not know how seriously minerals planning guidance note 3 takes the cumulative impact into account, but historical operations, some of which are still being used for landfill purposes, are not taken into account. The guidance note should be altered, as should much else in the note, to tighten the scope for possible applications considerably.

I raised this matter yesterday at Environment Question Time and I received the wrong answer from the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency, who said that historical cases were taken into account, which is not so, as anyone who examines MPG note 3 will see.

Derbyshire county council is placed in something of a cleft stick in relation to applications that it receives. It has the MPG hanging over it, and the MPG is disposed towards the acceptance of opencast applications, although the Government deny that. If the council rejects an application, however, the cost of an appeal is a considerable burden for an authority that is strapped for cash. On numerous occasions, I have raised the problems of Derbyshire county council and North East Derbyshire district council in relation to the standard spending assessment and allocation of money from Government sources. That obviously affects this whole game.

My constituents will be affected considerably if three operations go forward. The first is at Avenue Cokeworks, which has been closed. There is considerable contaminated land on the site. It is surrounded by the built-up regions of Grassmoor, Wingerworth, Tupton and Chesterfield to the north. Operations at the works cannot be easily hidden as it is in a valley, with a railway line running through the middle of it. A serious investigation is needed into the impact of operations at Avenue Cokeworks for the work force and nearby residents.

Twenty-nine claimants are operating through a Birmingham solicitor with cases relating mostly to cancer-13 ex-workers and 16 residents. Twelve are women, who live in two streets north-west of Avenue Cokeworks. The agreement that the operation should go ahead should be called in. The case is being pursued through judicial review, but there are massive problems in the region—not just the usual ones involving transport, disruption and the danger of asthma, which is a big problem at Grassmoor primary school, for instance, but serious problems involving the removal of contaminated land.

The idea is to move the former plant and to bury the contamination on the site; yet nearby at Grassmoor Lagoons, where tar and chemicals from Avenue Cokeworks are treated, bio-remediation is going to be used by the county council. If bio-remediation is appropriate in the case of Grassmoor Lagoons, it is likely that it would be also be appropriate in the case of the Avenue Cokeworks.

The second case is at the Breck. The application involves a site north of Barrow Hill and South of Eckington. The majority of the land in question is an attractive green area, currently in intensive agricultural use, with the exception of a disused tip which contains chemical and foundry waste and two oxbow lakes used as a fishery. The opencast operation would last for seven years and would provide for a waste disposal facility that would come into operation within the first year of opencasting and last for a further 19 years.

An average of one train per day would arrive at a railhead to the south of the site. Its 50 sealed containers would be unloaded and transported by road to the site. That would account for 70 per cent. of the waste. The remaining 30 per cent. would arrive entirely by road. If time permitted, I would illustrate the great problems involved in that application. Hon. Members, especially Labour Members, who know the area will understand the difficulties.

The third case is at Heath, next to junction 29 of the M1 motorway. It is a peculiar application which goes first to the district council because there is an argument that platforms should be built for firms operating as redistribution centres. Conveniently, an application will then go to the county council to get out coal that would otherwise be sterilised. The argument is that the ground there will need to be impacted. That is a great problem within the area, because certain firms moved to an industrial estate nearby on the understanding that opencast operations would not take place.

The cases that I have illustrated need to be added to other cases in which applications have already been accepted and where operations are taking place. I commend the Labour party's alternative points about opencast mining, one of which says that there would be a rejection of planning applications for opencasting where they may prejudice efforts to attract other investment in the locality. I hope that that would also apply to existing investment, which would cover the third case that I mentioned.

These issues should be debated seriously in the House and I hope that there will be an opportunity to do so in a more comprehensive way at a later stage.

11.42 am

Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood)

I want to use my short speech to wish people who live in Nottingham and use the national health service there a happy and healthy Christmas and new year. I also extend that greeting to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am extremely concerned about Nottingham health authority, which meets tomorrow and faces some difficult decisions about priorities. It is fair to remind the Leader of the House that,in the Budget statement last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—also a Nottinghamshire Member—told the House that priority would be given to health service issues. He told the Nottingham Evening Post on 27 November: I think you will find that he"— the chairman of the health authority— has got a lot of extra money. The reality is quite different. The health authority faces a standstill budget next year.

The basic underlying problem for the health authority is that it has been underfunded against the national formula for many years. In the current year it received 97.22 per cent. as against 100 per cent. funding. Next year, it is suggested that it will receive 97.56 per cent.— a move of just 0.34 per cent. towards the target. I say quietly and determinedly to the Leader of the House that at that rate of change it will take another seven years for it to reach average funding. It is clear to me and to those who live in Nottingham and work in the health service there that it is not receiving its fair share.

I commend everyone in Nottingham who has lobbied on what has become a bipartisan issue. It has involved hon. Members from all parties. I congratulate the chairman and chief executive of the health authority and all who work in the trust. We all want what is best for Nottingham, which is to reach the 100 per cent. target as quickly as possible.

In the longer term, I want to see more than that. Nottingham is a teaching district and, traditionally, teaching districts have had more than 100 per cent. funding. Camden receives 107 per cent., Manchester receives 106 per cent. and Ealing receives 104 per cent. They are all teaching districts. Nottinghamshire has a centre of excellence in the Queen's medical centre and, in the longer term, we need a greater slice of the cake.

Next year the health authority will have an extra £5.85 million to spend on hospital and community health services. However, it is not so clear-cut as that, because the uplift in its budget is just 2 per cent. and inflation will run at more than that. It is again being asked to make efficiency savings of 2.7 per cent. There comes a time when it is impossible to make any more efficiency savings.

In the Queen's medical centre—the biggest hospital in Europe—routine operations are not taking place this month or next month. I speculate—I do not think that I shall be far from the truth—that within the next few weeks major redundancies will be announced at the hospital. The City hospital has faced one efficiency saving after another and cut upon cut. I do not believe that much more can be done to save money there.

I wish the health authority well in its decision making tomorrow. It faces a difficult task and will have to make some hard choices. Its task would be made much easier if it and the people who live in Nottingham had a fair deal and received 100 per cent. funding. The Leader of the House will know that there is still extra money to be allocated within the NHS for next year. Perhaps he could look at the matter and talk to colleagues in the Department of Health so that some extra help can be given to Nottingham and so that people who live there can truly have a happy and healthy Christmas and a successful new year.

11.47 am

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

On today's Order Paper there are three early-day motions drawing attention to the deplorable deterioration in the quality, accuracy and truthfulness of answers to questions tabled by hon. Members. It is a serious matter. The three instances quoted are taken almost at random because it has become routine recently to have answers that fit the descriptions that I have mentioned.

One answer is from the Northern Ireland Office. It said that certain documents were in the public domain. After a thorough search, using the time of my staff and the Library, and after a letter to the Department, it had to admit that the documents were not in the public domain.

The second instance refers to a contemptible and contemptuous answer given to an hon. Member last week. When he asked how many representations had been made about the possible closure of benefit offices in Wales, he was told, "A number."

The third issue is a matter of considerable seriousness, and it causes a great many problems not only for my constituents but for the constituents of all hon. Members. I tabled a question about an obligatory form—no other form can be used—to appeal against decisions made on social security matters. I received an answer from a Social Security Minister, telling me that, at my request, he had placed a copy of the form in the Library. No form was in the Library. A fortnight after the regulations came into force, on 21 October 1996, the Minister had to confess that the forms had not yet been printed, and that they would not be printed for a further fortnight. That is an utter disgrace.

The fourth matter does not appear on today's Order Paper—although it should—because the Table Office had difficulties with the wording. It is also a clear case of a Minister not telling the truth to the House. I am limited in the language that I can use in this matter, although we have recently heard such words as "dissembling". In the early-day motion, I stated that the House notes the deliberate, calculated untruth contained in a recent answer. I used those words—instead of "lying", which I would have used outside the Chamber—because there is clear, incontrovertible evidence of a deliberate attempt to mislead the House.

I had tabled a question, which was dealt with by the Metropolitan police. My question is included at the top of the reply from the Metropolitan police, of 15 November 1996. It states: Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the police participation in the state opening of Parliament. The reply, of 200 words, then provides the answer to my question, and includes full details and explanations of how the costing was determined and the factors that were considered. It gives a figure of £286,000. Any hon. Member would greet with pleasure such a full and detailed answer. On 20 November, however, I was told by the Home Office: costs of police staff who took part in the ceremony are not separately costed."—[Official Report, 20 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 621.] In fact, they were indeed separately costed: Ministers had that document, and they lied to me. I tabled further questions, asking them to confirm that they had received the document. I received a reply confirming that they had received the figure, but the reply did not contain one syllable of apology or regret about the earlier answer.

I have raised these issues with Madam Speaker, and I shall raise them again. I believe that the events occurring in the dying days of this Parliament demean this institution. They attack the integrity of the House and reduce and undermine the role of all Back Benchers. Although we have the authority of our majorities behind us and we speak not only as individuals, our questions have been answered in that manner. We bring matters to the highest forum in the land, but they are treated in a contemptuous and contemptible manner. The Minister did not confess that he had not answered my question according to the Government's instruction to Ministers not to withhold information because it might be politically embarrassing.

My question was about a matter of great concern. The figures reveal that the state opening of Parliament cost approximately three quarters of a million pounds. Some believe that there should be a state opening once per Parliament and not once a year. There have also been indications that the police and many others resent having to provide 1,500 policemen and 1,500 soldiers for it. The ceremony has become increasingly meaningless. This year, for example, the Queen's Speech was found to be of little value because a few hours after it was made the Prime Minister changed it.

The mother of Parliaments is becoming debauched. Recent events have included "Conway-gate" and the resignation of a Minister, who made no act of contrition. We have used the word "dissembling" about that event. We must remember our role as the mother of Parliaments, and that as leaders of the nation we should set an example of morality. As Chaucer said: If gold ruste, what shall iren do?

11.55 am

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) down the path that he has been treading. However, I should like to follow his colleague, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and underscore his plea about Peru. I do so as one whose family members work there and whose cousins were born there. I understand some of its pressures and problems, and also the problem of copycat action around the world.

I should like to say a word of thanks to the Leader of the House. At Business Questions last Thursday, I pressed him on Northern Ireland's omission from the Protection from Harassment Bill. It will now be included by negative resolution.

I believe that the House should not adjourn until it addresses three issues. The first is pressure on residential homes—particularly in Northern Ireland, but also elsewhere. The problem of running the homes is specifically acute in Northern Ireland because the Department of Health and Social Services ultimately holds the purse strings. The point has been bluntly made that in the past 10 years the £260 permitted per week for residents in those homes has not even kept pace with inflation. The tragedy is that statutory homes are allowed more per resident than voluntary or private homes.

Private homes were encouraged to develop, but now they are increasingly being put under strain. The Craigavon trust area, for example, which is responsible for three subsidiary areas, is able to assess and allocate to residential homes only one resident per month. It is also wrong for the Government to rely continually on charitable, voluntary homes to provide care for residents. The reliance is aggravated by the fact that, because of national agreements, auxiliary staff in voluntary homes are paid about 50p less per hour than employees in statutory homes. Staff are trained in voluntary homes, but as soon as there is an opening they move on to better positions in statutory homes, putting more pressure on voluntary homes.

The second issue is more of a constituency matter, concerning the desire of the Sports Council and of the Green Park trust—although the desire has been manifested across the nation—for greater excellence in sportsmanship. The realisation of that goal requires sports medical facilities. I should like to think that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland will help the private sector and those working in the voluntary sector to provide facilities—in a centre for sports medicine, in Musgrave Park hospital, which is part of the Green Park trust—including orthopaedic and physiotherapy care. That is an important objective.

There is a growing belief, which I welcome, that there should be greater participation in sports and that we should raise the standards of our sportsmen. However, injuries occur. That project would provide an opportunity to expand the excellent service already provided by the Gait unit in Musgrave hospital, so that it could serve as a regional centre for excellence for sportsmen and women in Northern Ireland.

My third brief point relates to education. I know that the local management of schools initiative has been going for some time. However, there seem to be differences in its implementation. It appears from information given to me that those schools with fewer than 250 pupils registered are in greater difficulty than the larger schools.

It is a scandal that governors in some schools in Northern Ireland have granted substantial pay increases to principals while the management has had to reduce the number of teaching staff. That will have to be addressed sooner rather than later.

My attention has been drawn to one school in County Down which has not only lost its principal—it was certainly not able to increase his salary—but has now been asked to undertake more work and provide services with a budget already overdrawn by £30,000. The school is being asked to shoulder the increased salary costs of teachers. It is impossible to do that with a deficit budget.

One knock-on effect of that is that rural communities will be disrupted again, with schools being closed by so-called market forces. There will again be a drift from rural communities to the towns. That is not always best, because the harsh reality of life is that, the larger our centres of population, the more the likelihood of growth in deprivation and the development of mischievous incidents. From my experience, larger schools are not necessarily the best, although I attended one that was definitely outstanding. It is important to provide the best education that we can for young people in rural areas. I ask that consideration be given to that cry not just for my constituency, which is urban, but for rural areas throughout Northern Ireland.

12.1 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Given the shortness of the past few speeches, which were models of their kind, there might have been an opportunity for one of the other hon. Members who were in the Chamber earlier to participate. We have not had an overly successful three hours, because the time has not been used as we intended. Three hon. Members—the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—took 55 minutes between them and raised matters that would be better raised in local government than in the House of Commons.

Having attended many of these debates in the past few years since we changed the procedure, I put it seriously to the Leader of the House that we might consider having a ballot the night before for a mixture of five and 10-minute slots, to be allocated to hon. Members by name, in which they could still raise any subject that they wanted. That would be far better than our current hit and miss procedure, with excessively long early speeches denying many hon. Members the opportunity to raise important matters.

I cannot touch on all the matters that have been raised; nor, I imagine, will the Leader of the House be able to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) talked about the health service in London, saying that it was trolley time again in London hospitals. I suspect that we shall hear a good deal more about that in the early months of next year, as the winter starts to bite.

My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of Cyprus, mentioning the fact that the Foreign Secretary was able to visit for only 24 hours rather than the 48 hours planned. I am sure that the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues will take note that overseas ministerial visits in 1997 will, of necessity, be a good deal shorter than originally planned. That is not good for the conduct of business or for British interests overseas, but it is a consequence of matters being dealt with in the House. That is the price to be paid. There is a net loss to the country as a whole, but, by and large, people will be prepared to pay that price.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the serious issue of opencast mining, particularly the health hazards of the planned and existing opencast mines in north-east Derbyshire. Ministers will have to address those issues. Clearly, the Leader of the House can only pass them on, but Ministers should take a more proactive view.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the events in Peru overnight. We would appreciate any up-to-date information that the Leader of the House has.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) made the model speech of the morning. In five minutes, he raised one issue in a targeted way—the health service in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire and the effects on his constituents. I have no doubt that he will be back on that issue in 1997.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) raised the worrying issue of the accuracy of parliamentary answers. The Leader of the House is not responsible for the inaccurate answers, but the accuracy of answers should concern him more than it does most Cabinet Ministers, because he has a House of Commons role. I should be grateful if he would say something about that.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about the BSE crisis—an issue that we shall keep coming back to in 1997, because the bill will fall to the incoming Government. In particular, he raised matters relating to the cull and the gravy train that is operating to the benefit of a few slaughterhouse owners. That has been alluded to in the past. I have been present for many of the statements in the House. The hon. Gentleman made specific allegations that the taxpayer is not getting value for money. It is clear that, if the rules of local government were applied, Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would probably be surcharged for not obtaining value for money by proper competitive tendering arrangements.

Another worrying fact made clear by the hon. Member for North Cornwall—I was not aware of this—is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is in charge of the public face of the BSE cull, appears not to be accountable to the House for the management of the operations that he is conducting on behalf of the Government. I do not understand how he has escaped that—probably by offloading and transferring written questions. There ought to be some means of accountability to the House by the Minister responsible for the expenditure of more than £2 billion, rising to £3 billion. As I recall from a previous Red Book, that sum amounts to the entire contingency fund.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the worrying fact that only 21 of the 72 approved slaughterhouses were used for the work, with slightly more being used later. The big boys of the industry have clearly ripped off the taxpayer, with much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure going to them in direct profit, while probably hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses have been destroyed. Looking at the figures in detail, it does not make sense that so much of the public expenditure on dealing with the BSE crisis has lined the pockets of the wrong people, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, while so many small businesses have been destroyed. The issue cannot be dealt with in this morning's debate, but when the bills are picked up in 1997, those accountable for the disaster should be required to pay the price. That price will be in more than pounds, shillings and pence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the issue of the British Rail pension fund robbery, which is what it amounts to, given that £8 billion of assets exceed the liabilities by £1 billion. Such "robbery" has been going on for a long time, and is related not only to privatised industries but to the private sector as a whole.

From some figures in the Financial Times this morning, it is clear that the proportion of surpluses being taken by companies is exceeding that returned in benefits to pensioners by a ratio of more than 10:1. If there is inside knowledge or good guesswork on pension fund surpluses, low offers can be submitted for companies—especially those in the public sector—that are put up for sale. Companies are queuing up to pay the Government for up to seven years for the franchise of rail companies, which on the surface does not seem to make sense, because they are laughing all the way to the bank by being able to exploit British Rail pension funds.

Such activity occurs in the private sector, too. Many of my constituents have been affected by Lucas Industries plc raiding the company's pension fund surplus. That company has not paid a penny piece in employers' contributions for years. That is exactly what will happen in the railway industry as companies seek to take a pensions holiday. It is no good anyone saying that the matter rests with the trustees: many of them are quite weak, some turn out to be in the company's pocket and not truly independent, and, although most represent current members who are paying into the fund, they certainly do not represent current pensioners.

The matter will have to be dealt with. I understand that the pensions ombudsman has ordered National Grid to pay £44 million back into the pension fund, which may happen in the rest of the privatised sector. Nevertheless, Ministers should address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. If the Leader of the House cannot do so, he should ensure that we get an early and full response from Ministers. There will obviously be investigations—I suspect by the National Audit Office—which will take a long time. It would be very convenient if we could have answers well before the date of the general election is announced so that Ministers can be brought to book for their incompetence in the privatisation of our great national assets.

Although many other hon. Members have spoken, I do not have time to do their speeches justice. I do not think that the debate has been as successful as we could have hoped, due to the abuse of the time for debate by three Conservative Back Benchers.

12.12 pm

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

In the light of some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and the frustrations expressed earlier in the debate, it is rather ironic that the hon. Gentleman had some minutes more in which to speak than he had asked for and that I shall have nearly 10 minutes more than I had asked for, which should enable me to do more justice than would otherwise have been possible to some of the speeches. I had expected the occasion to be rather more dominated by the Christmas spirit, although we have certainly had the full and varied diet that is associated with Christmas. I shall do my best to digest as much of it as I have time for.

One point raised in several of the early speeches, which I hoped would have been made more often, concerns today's unquestionable seasonal good news about unemployment. Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment fell today by a record 95,800—down to just over 1.9 million, which is just under 7 per cent. of the work force. I should record that that is the largest monthly fall for 20 years, which brings unemployment down to below 2 million and the total fall since recovery began to more than 1 million.

It is right to make the point that the good news ties in with the outstandingly good report that we received yesterday from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which confirmed that unemployment in the United Kingdom is expected to decline further, and that its unemployment rate over the next two years is expected to be by far the lowest of any major European country and to remain well below the EU average. That is associated with the fact that the OECD expects the United Kingdom to be the fastest growing major European economy this year, next year and in 1998. I was grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for adverting to those points.

I turn to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon, partly because they referred to the recent good news and partly because they went on to give the House a fairly extensive political and geographical tour of Essex—the county in which I was born and educated and now partly represent. Despite my long association with the county, I learned even more about its geography this morning.

I am obviously tempted, because I am an Essex Member of Parliament, to join in with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon. I can certainly confirm that there are many tensions between the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups on Essex county council, as both my hon. Friends said, and that much of the county council's policy seems to leave a lot to be desired. I draw particular attention to some of the actions that it has taken in respect of school transport. I shall not go further down that line, because I would prefer to concentrate on joining both my hon. Friends in expressing pleasure at the grants that were announced this week by the national lottery's charities arm.

I have experienced the very great pleasure of awards being granted to the Halstead day centre, which is not in my constituency but which I know well, and the Tabor centre for physically handicapped adults, in Braintree, with which I have a quite close association. I know how much pleasure has been given by the awards.

I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point and for Basildon will forgive me for picking up on their remarks about proposals concerning the fire services in Essex. I should make it clear that, if a fire authority wants to reduce the number of its fire stations, appliances or firefighting posts, it needs the approval of the Home Secretary. So far, my right hon. and learned Friend has not received any application from Essex county council in respect of Canvey Island fire station, and I assure my hon. Friends that, should the county council make such an application, he will take account of any representations that he receives in reaching his decision. He has obviously received some representations this morning.

I return to the more logical way of replying to the debate—going through it in order and making such comments as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) referred to something for which I have my own enthusiasm: the benefits that his part of the country has experienced from the single regeneration budget announcements earlier this week and from the capital challenge. I was aware of the Lowestoft and the Suffolk Prosper bids to which he referred, because I act as a sort of honorary Minister for eastern England when such announcements are made. Indeed, I gave interviews on them to Radio Norfolk and Radio Suffolk and know how much encouragement they will have given the area. I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that east Braintree's regeneration plans were the subject of a successful bid in round I of the SRB, and one can already see the transformation on the ground of what was an old industrial part of the town.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to a number of points, but spent most of his speech on poverty. His speech was not as balanced as I would have hoped, even allowing for his political perspective. He failed entirely to acknowledge that the vast majority of people in this country are better off and that, since 1979, average income has risen by more than a third, even after allowing for inflation.

In using figures of the numbers of people on income-related benefit—as if that was some measure of poverty—the hon. Member for Walsall, North did not take any account at all of something about which I know a great deal because I did much work on it while I was Secretary of State for Social Security: in many respects, those figures reflect improvements in the benefit system. There are more people on income-related benefits, due to the huge improvement in the extension of family credit, the introduction of a carers' premium, disability premiums and better and larger premiums for older pensioners. The hon. Gentleman paid no attention to those factors in what I thought was a grossly over-simplified presentation.

Mr. Winnick

Obviously we shall have to agree to disagree about that, but when I say that the bottom 10th of the population as regards income are 17 per cent. worse off in absolute terms than in 1979, is the right hon. Gentleman really telling me that he disputes that? That is an important figure, as are the other figures that I gave about people living in poverty; I notice that he has not commented on those.

Mr. Newton

The hon. Gentleman put great weight on what I regard as very over-simplified statistics, in an over-simplified presentation. I have given some pretty compelling reasons to support my belief that it was oversimplified. Obviously, we do not have time for an extended debate on the details of all the statistics, but I have made my point and I cleave to it.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was one of a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who mentioned parliamentary questions. I take a close interest in that matter, and as it happens, the hon. Lady, who appears to have left her seat, has recently written—

Mrs. Dunwoody

I am here.

Mr. Newton

She is a peripatetic hon. Lady, and has now appeared in what for her is a rather unusual part of the Chamber. Perhaps she is practising to be part of the gang that sits on the Opposition Bench below the Gangway. None the less, I am glad to see her in her place.

The hon. Lady, among others, made some remarks about parliamentary questions. I shall consider with great care what was said, including what the hon. Member for Newport, West said about the State Opening of Parliament. The hon. Lady has written to me recently about related matters, and I am considering those, but it may be appropriate if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster replies, because he was in charge of the exercise that led to the publication of clearer guidelines on answering parliamentary questions. Of course, I always take the hon. Lady's comments seriously.

I accept that, as the hon. Lady said, there is a tendency for a flood of questions to be answered on the last day before a recess, but I think that the hon. Lady is being unduly cynical about the reasons that she attributed for that.

Part of the problem is caused by the huge increase in the volume of parliamentary questions asked, and by the pressure from hon. Members, who sometimes table questions at a late stage before a recess, not to mention the pressure within Departments to publish answers more quickly than they otherwise would. If questions are not answered today, they cannot be answered until 13 January, and if they were left until then, Departments would be criticised for that reason instead. I hope that the hon. Lady will at least acknowledge that point.

The main thrust of the hon. Lady's speech, which was added to by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and to some degree by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, concerned railway pensions. Hon. Members will have observed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport not only heard her remarks but has come into the Chamber to hear mine, having had a word with me in the intervening period. I can therefore assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend has taken note of what she said, although I hope that he will not mind my saying that some of his comments on it were less than flattering.

I must make it clear that the position regarding British Rail pensioners' rights will be no less favourable as a result of privatisation. The new arrangements replicate as far as possible those in place under BR, and include safeguards governing the use of surpluses. It is in the nature of a scheme funded jointly by employers and employees—60 per cent. is paid by the one and 40 per cent. by the other—that, when surpluses occur, they should be shared.

I went through a similar argument in a previous capacity when I was the Minister responsible for occupational pensions. In general terms, the topic has been the subject of endless argument over the years, and there has been fresh legislation. I suspect that were a deficit to emerge, the hon. Lady would be the first to demand that the employers find the money to fill it. There must be some balance between the two.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Government have written in so many exemptions for the private companies that there is no doubt that they would expect other people to support any deficit that appeared. My point is simpler than that: they are taking money to which they are not entitled, and they will make darn sure that they do not pay for any deficits.

Mr. Newton

As my time is now diminishing by the minute, I cannot say more to the hon. Lady than that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listened to what she has said—although I must admit that I could hear him uttering dissenting noises from a sedentary position. I am sure that he will come back to her on the subject if he feels it appropriate.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) continued what I acknowledge has been a long and vigorously fought campaign on matters related to BSE. He, probably more than almost anyone else, will be aware that the House had an extensive opportunity, if not to debate the matter, at least to question the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about BSE-related matters after his statement on Monday. Clearly I cannot go over all the ground again in a short speech.

I managed to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech from afar, although I was not in the Chamber at the time, and it struck me as, to put it mildly, somewhat tendentious. Much of what he said was based on 20:20 hindsight. Whatever the genesis of the 30-months scheme may have been, it was undoubtedly supported by the National Farmers Union, partly because farmers recognised that they would not sell any beef from animals older than 30 months unless something along those lines was done.

The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the fact that the result of the scheme was an increase in consumer confidence in the British market substantially more rapid than occurred in many other countries in Europe, and that that brought advantage to the British industry.

Mr. Tyler

Can the right hon. Gentleman give one assurance to the House—that, if the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office wished to go through the books and see exactly what happened, the Government would co-operate fully?

Mr. Newton

Of course the Government will always co-operate with properly constituted bodies of that kind. Beyond that, these are not matters on which I can comment off the cuff on the Floor of the House this morning. None the less, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been criticised in some respects—in my view, unfairly. In relation to the BSE culling arrangements, he is in the same position as I am on a range of other matters—that of chairing a Cabinet Committee or a co-ordinating group of Ministers. Executive responsibility remains with those Ministers. A co-ordinating arrangement is necessary, because many Departments are involved. We have four Departments responsible for agriculture, and other Departments have a strong interest in the issue too. The criticisms of my right hon. Friend, who has been assiduous and has done an effective job, are therefore unreasonable and unfair.

I am coming to the end of the time allowed, and I should comment briefly on what was said by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), without whom no debate of this nature would be complete these days. He made a traditional "Tooting speech", starting with hospitals and ending with Cyprus. I noted carefully what he said, and shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

I cannot comment on everything said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, who made a characteristic speech—I mean that as a compliment, not as some sort of disguised insult. The latest information that I have on the incident in Lima, which is not as complete as I would like, is that it is possible that some British nationals are in the residence. I cannot say more at this stage. The United Kingdom is in close touch with the Peruvian authorities, and we understand that negotiations are under way. We shall of course pass on any further information at the earliest opportunity, as it emerges.

I do not think that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would expect me to comment in detail on the points that he made in an excellent constituency speech. I shall ensure that they are drawn to the attention of those of my hon. Friends who are concerned with such matters in detail, just as I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to what was said by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping).

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for the words of thanks that he expressed for the action that we took to enable the Protection from Harassment Bill to extend to Northern Ireland. I take note of the fact that he took the trouble to acknowledge that; we were glad to be able to meet him in that respect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) told me that he wanted me to take note of what he said rather than to comment extensively on it. As he also told me that he would not be able to be here for my winding-up speech, I shall make little further comment, other than to say that I have several points that I think he would find encouraging, and I shall try to communicate them to him in other ways.

Those points include the fact that a public inquiry into the statutory orders needed for the Northfleet bypass scheme will be held before mid-April 1997. I understand that there has been much frustration among the scheme's supporters about delays in progress on that important matter. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, those delays have not been of the Government's making.

Because of the slightly unexpected additional time that I had, I have been able to comment on almost every speech. I hope that my comments will enable hon. Members to depart at least slightly happier than when they arrived and that they all, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have the sort of relaxed and enjoyable Christmas that I am sure they all—or at least some of them—deserve.