| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1272
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnGodman, Dr Norman A.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Kilfedder, Sir James
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Livingstone, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew
McWilliam, John
Madden, Max
Mahon, Alice
Marek, Dr John
Meacher, Michael
Michael, Alun
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Miller, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie
Murphy, Paul
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Pike, Peter L.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Prescott, John
Purchase, Ken
Randall, Stuart
Raynsford, Nick
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Sedgemore, Brian
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel
Tipping, Paddy
Trimble, David
Wareing, Robert N
Wicks, Malcolm
Wigley, Dafydd
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Robert Maclennan and
Mrs. Margaret Ewing.
Nil Tellers for the Noes
NOES
Nil Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Piers Merchant and
Mr. Roy Thomason.
Whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker-- declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure or for Proposal of Question).
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.
Column 1273
Remaining Private Members' Bills
SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 March.
WATER CHARGES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading, what day?
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 2 July.
HEDGEROWS BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading, what day?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : With the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 19 February.
COMMONWEALTH OF BRITAIN BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : The royal consent having been given, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.
Column 1274
LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [15 January].
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Debate to be resumed, what day? No day named.
COMMONWEALTH OF EUROPE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Benn : The royal consent having been given, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.
EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 February.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 16th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John Smith relating to Agriculture (S.I., 1993, No. 70) not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon ; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 17th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to Local Government (Scotland) not later than three hours after the first of them has been entered upon ; and the said Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Column 1275
Isle of Sheppey (Assisted Area Status)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]
2.38 pm
Sir Roger Moate (Faversham) : I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for his continuing and helpful interest in our area. He is, I know, coming to Sheppey in a few weeks' time to open a new factory. He was in Thanet and Dover only a few months ago. He also arranged recently for a full, helpful and lengthy meeting with north and east Kent Members to discuss the east Kent initiative. We found that meeting most encouraging and I hope that we were right to do so. Not least, my right hon. Friend is responding to the debate today. I should apologise to him and to his constituents for keeping him here this afternoon if it were not to debate a matter of such significance to north Kent in general and to the Isle of Sheppey in particular.
The debate is about the economic situation of the Isle of Sheppey and assisted area status. I have deliberately specified the Isle of Sheppey for reasons that I shall give in a moment. An application for assisted area status has been lodged in respect of the east Kent coastal strip, which includes the travel-to-work areas of Sittingbourne and Sheerness, Thanet, Dover and Deal, Folkestone and the coastal towns of the Canterbury travel- to-work area, which have all been brought together under the east Kent initiative. Many of my hon. Friends asked whether they could take part in the debate. I told them that the debate was about the Isle of Sheppey--not even about the whole of my borough of Swale or the whole of the area covered by the east Kent initiative. That is because the Isle of Sheppey has specific problems that I wish to place on record. At the same time, however, let me place on record my admiration for the highly professional way in which the east Kent initiative application has been presented and processed and for the co-operation of all the local authorities and other organisations and individuals concerned with the initiative. As I said, several of my hon. Friends from north Kent wanted to be here, but, although our combined efforts are, I think, fundamental to the application, this is, none the less, a debate about Sheppey.
It is estimated that by the year 2000 the area as a whole could have a jobs shortfall of more than 40,000. Some serious structural changes are taking place in north and east Kent, which is why the application that we have lodged is so important. The Kent impact study predicts a bleak future for east Kent if nothing radical is done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) constantly reminds us how many jobs will be lost in Dover alone as a result of the completion of the tunnel and of the single market. In passing, let me thank my hon. Friend and our Member of the European Parliament, Christopher Jackson, for their work in pressing successfully for a special fund to help customs clearance agents and freight forwarders who will become redundant as a result of the changes. Three years ago, it was estimated that well over 2,000--perhaps nearly 3,000--people were employed by such companies. As a result of their lobbying, substantial sums will be available this summer, in particular to help with retraining.
I shall paint a gloomy picture, although I stress that there is another side to the coin. Sheppey is one of the
Column 1276
strongest manufacturing areas in the south- east of England. It is a leading producer of steel, pharmaceuticals, electrical goods, ceramics and other products. It has Britain's fifth- largest port by tonnage and a ferry company with the best ships on the channel--they are second to none. It is a newly designated environmentally sensitive area. The people of Sheppey are proud of their island and rightly so. In strategic terms, it is superbly located and there is great local determination to use the advantages to create economic growth and local prosperity.The present position was summed up rather gloomily in the Financial Times of 8 August 1992, in an article entitled "Tackling Blight in the Garden of England, Depressed East Kent is Perceived as Part of the Prosperous South East". That perception is our problem. The article states that Sheppey is the worst blackspot of all, with regeneration hampered by the bottleneck of a narrow access road and a lifting bridge over the River Swale. It refers to the 22,000 vehicles a day crossing that bridge--the figure is actually 24,100--and mentions the big blow that was dealt to the hopes of the area when the Government recently rejected a £500 million development plan for Sheppey, which included a new road and a new Swale crossing. Unemployment in Sheppey was then running at more than 16 per cent. Regrettably, it is now estimated to be 18 per cent. and it could be 20 per cent. by the end of February as a result of a sad dispute over contracts at Sheerness docks. In November, the Sittingbourne and Sheerness travel-to- work area, which includes Sheppey, was the 13th worst-hit in England and the 17th worst-hit in the United Kingdom. Even more serious, its long-term unemployment is the highest in Kent.
We have been hit hardest by the recession--particularly by the rundown in the construction industry and by the very severe recession in London, which has had a heavy fallout in north Kent. East Kent has a fragile economy which is about to undergo severe structural changes. Sheppey is worst hit of all because of our poor road and rail links.
As we have been hit hardest by the recession, the steps that we can and should take now would allow Sheppey and north Kent to help lead the south- east out of recession. Let me tell my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry what I would like him to do--if he can--to help us, quite apart from the question of assisted area status. I should like him to use his good offices to spur other Departments to make rapid progress with projects that are in the pipeline, but which always take a long time to conclude.
There is the all-important question of the second Swale crossing. I have already referred to the daily traffic movements of 24,100 over the single carriageway lifting bridge. The volume is higher than that of the M20 east of Maidstone.
I shall not refer in detail to the Lionhope scheme, which is sometimes referred to as the Swale project. As I have said, that project was turned down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, anything that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry can do in that respect would be greatly appreciated.
The Secretaries of State for Environment and for Transport, their staff, local councils, planning authorities and many other organisations have been working very hard, and have impressed me enormously with their commitment, to produce a package to replace the
| Next Section
| Home Page |