| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : I will not continue on the same tack as the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), although I think that he is right to pursue the subject of bringing more criminals to justice. They should have to face justice, however long that takes, so I support him in that sentiment.
This House should not leave for the recess until an Education Minister has made a statement about blind pupils and other disabled schoolchildren being refused places at opted-out schools. That new, obnoxious and discriminatory policy seems to have come about as a by-product of Government education policies rather than as a deliberate result of them. I raised the subject on a point of order earlier and Madam Speaker encouraged me to mention it in this debate.
I have notified the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), as Highams Park school is in his constituency. The school has just ended its 20-year-old agreement with a special school nearby to teach blind and partially sighted children. Highams Park has only recently opted out of the local government system. In an article in The Guardian of 24 July 1993 Mr. Andrew Lockhart, the chief education officer of the London borough of Waltham Forest, described what is happening as
"a particularly nasty kind of selection."
I shall quote from him again later. The article also stated : "About 15 blind and partially-sighted children attended lessons and were integrated into Highams Park"
school. The head teacher of the school has now said that that arrangement must be brought to an end, although he has imposed a couple of conditions, whereby he will continue the arrangement if he gets extra money--something like £26,000--from the local education authority, plus additional staff support from the special school that was feeding blind pupils into Highams Park.
Column 803
To ask for money in those circumstances is to hold the authority, the parents of those children and the children up to ransom. Really it is blackmail.The article goes on to say :
"The number of visually-handicapped pupils being integrated fell as Highams Park placed more emphasis on academic courses."
It quotes Mr. Frank Smith, the head teacher of the special school whose pupils fed into Highams Park, who said :
"It was difficult to negotiate with the school at the top level. We believe things were made difficult to squeeze us out. Children with special educational needs are not welcome."
That is a serious allegation. Indeed, a blind pupil who was integrated into Highams Park school has had to be taken out. The local authority has found her a place at Rush Croft school, another school with a good reputation in the Chingford area. I pay tribute to the local authority for preserving that blind girl's education within the main schooling sector--no thanks to the head teacher and the narrow-minded governors of Highams Park school.
The chief education officer of Waltham Forest, Mr. Andrew Lockhart, said :
"A grant-maintained school can refuse to accept a pupil with special educational needs. In the long term, it would seem to allow grant- maintained schools to select not to have pupils with special educational needs. It is a particularly nasty kind of selection." I endorse those comments and ask the Government to comment on this serious matter.
It seems that the governors of opt-out schools are trying to grab as much money as they can from the local education authorities at the expense of the schools run by those authorities and that is quite wrong.
The article made it clear that Highams Park school was choosing not to take blind children or children who need special education because it has an eye on the Government's league table policy, which places emphasis on examinations and a school's academic record. That policy is not working properly when it means that schools do not take such children. For a start, there is a false assumption that blind children will not gain academic qualifications and are not intelligent enough to be in the mainstream of education. The Government should not contemplate such an argument.
Secondly, league tables based purely on examinations do not reflect a school's qualities or its achievements. Part of its achievements should be to deal with children who need special education. Plainly, the policy has gone wrong when Highams Park school and other opt-out schools can exclude such children. It seems that schools such as Highams Park are getting ready to go fully private and when that happens they will not want those children. There should be a rule that private and opted-out schools have to take children with special educational needs.
A Lords amendment to the Education Bill would have given local education authorities the power to direct grant-maintained schools to accept such pupils. However, last week the Government turned that down without proper debate. They should think again about their policy. What is the Government's attitude to blind and disabled pupils? Do they want them ghettoised, out of the mainstream, or do they favour my policy, which is that they should be properly integrated in the mainstream education system? If the Government agree, they should require opted-out and private schools to take those pupils and give them a proper education. There should not be an obnoxious discriminatory system of policy. I hope that the Minister will deal with that.
Column 804
7.12 pmMr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster) : I want to add to the gallery, if not the galaxy, of subjects that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have to address. The single subject of my speech is the BBC World Service, an issue that I have raised before. In an Adjournment debate a month ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) dealt with the matter in detail. Early-day motion 1780 is by far the best supported motion this Session. It has 378 signatures, the number is increasing, and the motion has not been off the Order Paper since it was put down some months ago. The aim is to obtain 400 signatures. The motion is in the top 10 of all time and its support ranges from right to left across both major parties. Almost all Liberal Democrat Members, including the leader of that party, who does not usually sign early-day motions, have signed it.
I shall not do a complete roll call, but I can say that it is also supported by the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the leaders of the Scottish and Welsh National parties. The motion has almost unique cross-section support because the BBC World Service does an outstanding job for Britain. It carries out a function that Britain performs best and in these times of challenge and change we should hang on to such functions.
In national budgetary terms, the money involved is minimal and out of all proportion to the job that the World Service does. The service has already taken a considerable cut. The early-day motion does not argue against the cuts, but points out that there has already been one in the current year of some £5 million and that the service is threatened with a further cut of 2.5 or 5 per cent. The service could not absorb such costs and it will suffer.
The Government should adopt a flexible view in imposing the cuts that will have to be imposed, bearing in mind our financial situation. There must be flexibility in dealing with low-cost functions which Britain does well and which do for Britain an amount of good throughout the world quite incommensurate with the minimal cost that is involved. A deputation representing the signatories of that motion intends to seek a meeting with the Chief Secretary before the recess is out.
7.16 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : I remind the House of the terms of the motion :
"That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 27th July, do adjourn until Monday 18th October."
That is 1. Cryer) said that he was prepared to divide the House on his amendment to the motion. If he does, I shall certainly support him.
Who benefits from the 12-week recess? The main beneficiaries are obviously the Government, because any Executive benefits from not being harassed by a Parliament to which they are answerable. This Government particularly will benefit from such a recess in view of their difficulties and the fact that they had to force a vote of confidence on the House. Their only survival factor is the 12-week break, because they hope that in that time something will turn up to their benefit.
Column 805
Perhaps some hon. Members benefit from such a long recess and some part-time Members with other jobs find it convenient. Perhaps overworked Members find it beneficial to get away from the Chamber and involve themselves in constituency and other work and have a change of scenery. However, our constituents do not benefit from Parliament being away for 12 weeks. Their only benefit is that the Government cannot press on us more anti-social legislation. Hon. Members use the House to probe the Government on behalf of their constituents, but answers often come from civil servants rather than Ministers who may not particularly care about the issues that are being raised. Civil servants protect their Ministers. The well-understood avenues for hon. Members are written and oral questions, questions on statements, debates and early-day motions. The hon. Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) spoke about an early-day motion that has been used in an excellent way because it has been fully extended and a campaign has been organised around it. Even with minor early-day motions, during business questions on a Thursday we can ask whether a particular early-day motion will be discussed. The PPS to the Leader of the House will pass to him details that have been prepared and in that way we can learn the official response.Some hon. Members may have more access to information than others to pursue their constituents' interests. Various avenues are open to a Minister ; a prominent Opposition Member will be listened to. But what happens to Opposition Back Benchers ? What they have available to them is attempted contact with Ministers--through letters, telephone conversations and perhaps persuading their hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to harry Ministers into a meeting to discuss a particular subject--but they do not have the ready responses that come from being able to conduct a campaign on the Floor of the House.
We should not have 12-week breaks. Parliament meets long enough over the year and half that 12-week period could be used throughout the year for early-day motions and the like. The absence of early-day motions and such options would not matter much for a week--people can survive that--but their absence for 12 weeks can leave many difficulties and many of the issues that constituents wish to raise are not seriously considered. Last year many hon. Members tried to telephone the Benefits Agency during the recess in order to push particular cases, but they did not have the avenues available in the House to supplement that activity.
We should oppose the motion for the sake of our constituents so that we can represent them better. I hope that, in time, the spread of business of the House will be organised in such a way as to enable us to serve our constituents more effectively.
7.22 pm
Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : I should like to make a brief contribution before the recess and before hon. Members disappear with their buckets and spades to the seaside for 12 weeks minus one day.
The House knows that the size of the public sector borrowing requirement is huge and that the Government have the problem of addressing it. Currently, the
Column 806
Government have the worst of both worlds : they must address both the deficit and the public perception that they have been cutting public expenditure for years. That incorrect public perception started in 1979, when the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, and her Ministers announced that they were going to be tough on spending. That misconception has grown over the past 14 years.The truth is that, in real terms, public sector expenditure has soared, although the public believe that there have been cuts. Anyone who disbelieves that need only hold a survey on national health expenditure, which will show that the majority of the public think that there have been cuts. We know that there has been an increase, in real terms, of over 50 per cent.
The Government must deal with both expenditure and income. Cutting public expenditure will help, but I believe that it is easier to increase income. Perhaps that is not a fashionable view in the House. I have noticed that some hon. Members are very good spenders, but not good earners.
Let me draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an aspect of the legislation concerning property leasing which could be detrimental, in some cases, to industry and commerce, especially small businesses. That aspect-- which is currently under scrutiny--is the growing practice of upwards-only rent reviews and the liability that remains with the original leaseholder of a property if subsequent leaseholders default.
I know that solicitors are supposed to be responsible and point out the pitfalls, especially to people entering such agreements for the first time, but that does not always happen. Many small business men starting their first business do so with starry eyes. We should remove some of the pitfalls, which I believe should not be there in the first place.
I am fully aware that the value of property has a particular niche in public consciousness, but I sometimes wonder whether we have an excessive obsession with property. Once property has been built, it is the use to which it can be put that is of value to the nation. The two aspects that I have mentioned damage the mobility of companies, their growth and, in some cases, their very existence. If we have consistently high inflation, the upwards-only rent reviews do not matter so much ; however, in a stable economy with low inflation--or even during recessions--true rents may drop. I do not see why rents should go for ever onwards and upwards. Companies face varying circumstances over the years. Some companies may want smaller premises--they may be losing money and want to get out of their larger premises--but they are locked in. Some companies may disagree with the rent review and want to move to cheaper premises. Too bad ; they are locked in.
Arbitration can create further pressure on a business. Often a company has built up a successful business, it has grown and their customers know where it is ; but the cost of location is high. The natural tendency when there is a rent review, if it goes to arbitration, is for the arbiters to say, "That is a successful business : it can afford an upward move." In that way, the rent can unfairly reflect the success of the company to the advantage of the landlord.
As for the liability of the original leaseholder when a lease is disposed of, again there is a locked-in element. If the landlord refuses to lift the liability, it is possible that, several years later, the original leaseholder will be liable for any defaults. The landlord can go back to a company or
Column 807
person through, literally, several changes of ownership of the lease and receive payment, perhaps several years later. The original person or company will have no influence whatever on the management of the failed company. A limit on liability should be introduced to help such companies, perhaps based on time--for instance, the period to the next rent review.I will not develop the ways in which the two aspects might be further improved, because of the time restrictions operating this evening. We make great play of the mobility of labour ; I think, in turn, we should have a degree of flexibility as regards companies. Small businesses are affected and it is in small businesses that we will see a growth in employment and the profitability of our nation. We put that at risk at our peril. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take this on board when reviewing the legislation for the forthcoming year.
7.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I will be extraordinarily brief. I wish to raise the issue of Norwegian whaling. The cause is close to my heart, and is close also to the hearts of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is quite outrageous that, since the ban on commercial whaling imposed in 1986 by the International Whaling Commission, the Norwegians--under the guise of scientific whaling--have slaughtered 1,000 minke whales. That is unacceptable. They have used the word "science" as a way of getting around the ban on commercial whaling.
They have now gone further. At the most recent IWC meeting in Kyoto, Japan, the Norwegians announced that they would completely ignore the renewal of the commercial whaling ban, and that they would resume commercial whaling. They have now done so, and have slaughttered 100 minke whales in the north Atlantic this year. They intend to slaugher another 200 of the whales.
The whales belong to all of us. They are migratory creatures, and are not the property of Norway. Mrs. Bro Harlem Brundtland calls herself a socialist, and goes around the world talking about her green credentials. She has acted like a stinking hypocrite in the way in which she has flouted an international agreement on whaling. This country, and indeed the Government, must take a strong lead : they must make it clear to the Norwegians that their behaviour is unacceptable and that, while they continue to slaughter those beautiful creatures, there is no place for them in any civilised family of nations.
The Government should tell the Norwegians that they should not be allowed to join the European Community until they give up whaling. This country should also take appropriate sanctions against Norwegian goods. If Norway continues whaling, I must say on behalf of many Londoners that the traditional Christmas tree erected in Trafalgar square will not be welcome. If the tree is erected, it will become the focal point of a number of demonstrations. Those demonstrations will, of course, be peaceful, as those of us who love and believe in the rights of co-existence of all living creatures believe in peaceful demonstrations.
I hope that the House and the Leader of the House will join me once again in utterly condemning the actions of the Norwegians.
Column 808
7.32 pmMr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East) : I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I hope that we will be able to send a message to the Norwegians that we want to save the whale. Whales are beautiful creatures, and should not be hunted and killed.
There has been a range of calls during this short debate for statements and debates. If one thing is completely predictable, it is that the range of topics covered in our little debate this evening will be exceeded by the range of announcements that will come from the Government immediately after the beginning of the summer recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) pointed out with uncharacteristic cynicism that the Government are convenienced by our removal from this place over the summer. The Leader of the House's more usual role is to announce what is to happen in the next week or the week after. I wonder whether he could give us a list now of the statements that we can expect from the Executive in the next fortnight. Those statements will cover topics that the Government would be slightly more hesitant in covering were the House still in session. Experience suggests that there will be a range of statements. Can we expect, for example, a supplementary statement on assisted area status? A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed dissatisfaction with the announcement made earlier today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke of the hurt suffered by his former steel industry community. He felt that his area had been treated unfairly. A common theme in the speeches by Opposition Members was that, in making their decisions on assisted area status, the Government have concentrated on what they deem to be political advantage, rather than considering issues on their merits alone.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) mentioned the purchase of the stories of criminals by newspapers, and the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) agreed with that view. Both hon. Members should sign the early-day motion that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), which addresses that question. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) brought to our attention the continuing scandal of the lack of progress over Cyprus. He pinned the blame where it clearly belongs- -with the leadership of the Republic of Northern Cyprus. That country is now acting as host to Mr. Asil Nadir. My hon. Friend hoped that Mr. Nadir's present position would focus attention on northern Cyprus. I do not think that it is likely that the Conservative party will pursue the issue with any vigour.
One of the saddest documents I have read in the past year was an article in the July/August issue of Business Age on the funding of the Conservative party. Among a number of major donors named in the article was Mr. Asil Nadir. [ Hon. Members :-- "You don't believe that."] Some hon. Members may say that I do not believe that. I have not, however, heard a convincing refutation of the points contained in the article. Were such a refutation of those thoroughly researched points ever produced, I would consider it in my usual fair-minded way.
I remind Conservative Members of the concluding words of the editor and publisher of the magazine :
Column 809
"Britain's ruling party is riddled with corruption. It's time to clean up government. Now."That is a damning indictment of the Conservative party, and does not suggest any vigour in following the affairs of Mr. Asil Nadir. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) expressed concern at the rising support for the Labour party in his constituency. Clearly, his rejection by the electorate of Newcastle, East has had a lasting and searing effect on him.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to make a Labour party speech. He advocated state intervention to revitalise the construction industry and public transport in the form of urban light railways. Both are sound Labour party policies, and I congratulate him on his belated conversion to some of the causes we favour. If that conversion has been produced by electoral pressure from the Labour party in Altrincham and Sale, the Conservative party is probably in even more trouble than the newspapers say.
The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) followed an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennet). My hon. Friend denounced the Sheehy report, spoke about the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel and regretted the loss of assisted area status for Manchester. He said that the outcome had been gerrymandered, which was a constant theme during the debate. The hon. Member for Basildon spoke with some expertise about broken election promises. He could have referred to the promises to maintain the value of the currency, to retain membership of the ERM, not to impose tax increases and not to increase or extend VAT. Those were not, however, among the broken election promises to which he drew our attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) drew our attention to the guidance for Ministers in the declaration of their directorships. He compared that--helpfully, I thought--with the rules for those who claim state benefit. It did seem that those claiming state benefit are treated more harshly than the four Ministers that my hon. Friend mentioned. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the serious point in my hon. Friend's speech. If Ministers are in breach of the guidelines, that matter should be drawn to the Prime Minister's attention and rectified immediately. It is a serious matter, and should be treated as such.
The hon. Member for Corby echoed the hon. Member for Basildon in asking what control we have over local councillors. The subject is often raised in the House, but the truth is that hon. Members cannot exercise any direct control over councillors, either members of their own party or of others. The call to introduce a Bill of attainder or to impeach them seem to be rather wild remedies. They were not an appropriate trailer for the serious content of the hon. Gentleman's speech, dealing with war crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised the disgraceful case of the blind pupil who has been refused a place at an opted-out school. That is a direct consequence of money following the pupil, which means that some pupils are more expensive. Therefore, schools say that they cannot afford to have them unless they get extra money. According to my hon. Friend, the head
Column 810
teacher has made it clear that the row is about money. That is a disgraceful state of affairs and one which I hope will be remedied quickly.The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made a plea for the World Service. I agree with him : the BBC World Service is an institution much respected among hon. Members on both the Opposition and Conservative Benches. I, too, make a plea for the World Service. On that bipartisan note, I wish the Leader of the House a happy recess.
7.39 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : The speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was a good deal more emollient than the speech that he made in our last such debate. I welcome the spirit in which he spoke. I noted his reference to Government announcements. All I can do is assure him that Her Majesty's Government remain as assiduous in their activities on behalf of the citizens of Britain when Parliament is not sitting as when it is. The hon. Gentleman quoted Business Age. If I remember aright, the magazine to which he devotes so much credence described Brunei as a small desert kingdom. He also referred to Bills of attainder. Given the record of some Labour local authorities, I can well imagine that he does not believe that anyone should be in a position to take effective action against malpractice.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that an excellent programme on Scottish Television tonight revealed some of the scandal of corruption and nepotism in Monklands district council? As a result of the investigations by Scottish Television, no fewer than four agencies are investigating the wrongdoing that has taken place in that council--the Inland Revenue, the fraud squad, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Government.
Mr. Newton : If all those investigations are taking place, that is probably a good reason for me not to comment from the Dispatch Box. The investigations certainly conform with my hon. Friend's assiduous activities in raising the matter over the months. In due course, we shall undoubtedly see a report of the television programme. I apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to comment in detail in the eight minutes remaining to me on all the speeches that have been made. In particular, I simply pick up the kind invitations of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) to note their remarks and make sure that they are transmitted to the relevant Ministers for consideration. I shall certainly do so.
I also apologise to the one or two hon. Members whose speeches I was not able to hear. I had intended to mention the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), but as I understand that the main burden of his remarks was that the House should go on sitting and sitting, perhaps almost everyone else present in the Chamber is happy that I was not present to lend an ear to his plea, lest I should respond favourably.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) kindly warned me that he would not be able to stay for my reply. He made several important
Column 811
points and asked me three specific questions about matters affecting the standard spending assessment of Shropshire and elsewhere.He asked me whether the paper had been received. I can inform him that a representative from Shropshire presented a paper on behalf of the Association of County Councils on the area cost adjustment to the SSA sub- group and the settlement working group earlier this month--I hope that the House has digested all that. All the points that have been made will be taken into account by Ministers before they make their provisional decisions on the 1994-95 revenue support grant settlement later this year. I hope that my right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment will write further, as need be, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) made several points principally about what had happened to his constituency under the proposed new assisted areas map. I understand that the level of assistance has been reduced because the position has improved since the previous map was drawn. The intermediate area status takes into account the assisted area status of the neighbouring travel-to-work area. The hon. Gentleman also made some points about steel and the actions of the United States, which I shall draw to the attention of the relevant Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) made important points about water quality and cost, generally and in the south- west, and about the important link between Plymouth, Newquay and Heathrow. He described the way in which the link could best be protected. I know that he has corresponded with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who has said that he regards the acquisition by British Airways of Brymon Airways as a reassuring development. I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend is drawn to everything that my hon. Friend has said on the matter tonight. I shall also draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to what my hon. Friend said about water quality and costs.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised four important issues. The first concerned some reports about money that might be paid to Karyn Smith and Patricia Cahill following their return to Britain. I shall confine myself to saying that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Government deplore the exploitation of criminal activities for gain. I am sure that the feelings that the hon. Gentleman expressed will be shared by hon. Members from many parties. I shall draw his comments specifically to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on objective 5 status for his constituency. The criteria for objective 2 and objective 5(b) status were agreed in the structural funds regulations adopted on 20 July. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will announce in the near future the arrangements for drawing up the list of areas which Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Commission for that status, and the arrangements for any representations that regional and local bodies wish to make.
The hon. Gentleman will perhaps not expect me to comment in any depth on his remarks which trenched right into budgetary policy, especially in the immediate aftermath of my announcing the date of the next Budget.
He and several other hon. Members on both sides of the House also made extensive reference to the Sheehy report.
Column 812
I emphasise, as I did in business questions, that it must be understood that the Sheehy report is a report not by the Government but to the Government, which the Government will consider. There will be full consultation with the police and other interests before any decisions are made on the implementation of the recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) raised the important issue of nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union. He will know that the Government share his anxieties and continue to play a full part in the multilateral action programme agreed at the Munich summit. He made a considered and extensive speech, to which I am sure my right hon. Friends will wish to reply more fully in other ways, as I have said about the speech of the hon. Member for Tooting.My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) must count as an Adjournment groupie. Few hospital projects can have been pursued more assiduously by a Member of Parliament for so long, certainly with this Leader of the House and, for all I know, with earlier ones, than the South Trafford community hospital.
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, North Western regional health authority will discuss tomorrow the desirability of a major refurbishment there. I am not sure whether it is proper for me to say from the Front Bench that my fingers will be crossed. I at least hope that my hon. Friend gets what he wants, even if only because it might cut by one the number of speeches in future Adjournment debates. My hon. Friend made some other important points about housing associations and about the Metrolink. In that, he was supported by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I have taken those points on board.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made other points about the Manchester travel-to-work area and the assisted areas map. The basis of the Government's thinking is that the TTWA as a whole is not in the worst third for current unemployment. We do not expect the Olympic bid to be affected by the new map. A great deal of other money is going into the area, including in connection with the Olympic bid. Up to £75 million of Government money has been promised.
I cannot add to my implicit comments about Lancashire Hill post office, although I am sure that the Post Office will carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As Lancashire Hill is a sub-post office, it is in effect a private venture, and the Post Office cannot compel people to undertake it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) invited me to engage in Essex local political controversy on a scale that I am not sure would be proper, and for which there certainly is not time. I noted his remarks about Pitsea post office, and will draw them to the attention of the Post Office.
I will pass over the latter comments of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), but as to assisted area status-- It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker-- put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).
The House divided : Ayes 136, Noes 52.
Column 813
Division No. 362] [7.50 pmAYES
Alexander, Richard
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashby, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bates, Michael
Bellingham, Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Booth, Hartley
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Bowis, John
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Burt, Alistair
Butler, Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Cash, William
Clappison, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Colvin, Michael
Congdon, David
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Cormack, Patrick
Couchman, James
Cran, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Day, Stephen
Dover, Den
Duncan, Alan
Dunn, Bob
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Fabricant, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Forman, Nigel
Forth, Eric
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
French, Douglas
Gallie, Phil
Gill, Christopher
Gillan, Cheryl
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Gorst, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Hague, William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hawksley, Warren
Heald, Oliver
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Hendry, Charles
Hicks, Robert
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Jack, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard
Kirkhope, Timothy
Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Legg, Barry
Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Lidington, David
Lightbown, David
MacKay, Andrew
Maclean, David
McLoughlin, Patrick
Malone, Gerald
Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Merchant, Piers
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Neubert, Sir Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Nicholls, Patrick
Norris, Steve
Page, Richard
Patnick, Irvine
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Powell, William (Corby)
Rathbone, Tim
Richards, Rod
Riddick, Graham
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Shaw, David (Dover)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Spink, Dr Robert
Sproat, Iain
Steen, Anthony
Sweeney, Walter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Thomason, Roy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Thurnham, Peter
Trend, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Waller, Gary
Ward, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wells, Bowen
Whitney, Ray
Whittingdale, John
Widdecombe, Ann
Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Wilkinson, John
Willetts, David
Wolfson, Mark
Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. James Arbuthnot and
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.
NOES
| Next Section
| Home Page |