Home Page

Column 819

House of Commons

Wednesday 24 May 1995

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

10.4 am

Madam Speaker: The House will wish to know of the arrangements made for today's sitting following the death of the former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. This morning's proceedings on the motion for the Adjournment will go ahead in the normal way. There will be questions at 2.30 pm and an opportunity for statements at 3.30 pm. Immediately after that, there will be tributes to Lord Wilson and it will be proposed that the House then adjourns.

Column 820

Adjournment of the House

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

10.5 am

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): I believe that the House should not adjourn before hon. Members have considered the important matter of the underfunding of school budgets. Yesterday, the House heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about school budgets in Devon being underfunded by the Lib-Lab county council, and about the fact that Conservative county councillors there have proposed a motion that the £4 million odd should be restored and have shown the ways and means by which that could be done. That proposal was turned down by the Lib-Lab county councillors in Devon.

The position in Kent should be raised this morning. My hon. Friends representing Kent and I have raised it incessantly. At the risk of boring hon. Members, I shall remind them that the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups on Kent county council at first intended to provide for no increase in school funding for this year, despite knowing that a settlement for an increase in teachers' pay had been rightly approved. That creates an intolerable position for our schools and it has occurred at a time when Kent county council has received a 2 per cent. increase in financial support from the Government, and when the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups have approved a budget that has hit Kent council tax payers with an increase of more than 5 per cent. in their council tax.

When one considers that 2 per cent. increase in Government funding and the fact that council tax payers are contributing another 5 per cent., it is an absolute outrage that schools in our county were confined to budgets that showed no increase to take account of teachers' pay or of inflation. Needless to say, that caused outrage in Kent and the Lib-Labs conceded the point to the extent that they introduced a 1 per cent. increase. That has nevertheless left our schools with problems in relation to their budgets and how they manage their finances. In a small number of cases, those problems could lead to the loss of teaching posts, which is outrageous. The county council's Conservative group proposed an alternative budget that showed ways in which, by a rearrangement of spending, money could be concentrated on schools, thereby increasing funds to cover the teachers' pay settlement and making up for inflation. That could have reversed the wanton imposition of a £700,000 cut in adult education by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups and could have kept a fund going for discretionary grants for post-16 education, which the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have totally cut. In a neighbouring constituency to mine, we have a case of a young girl who has an exceptional talent in dance. She would normally have looked to the county council for a discretionary grant to develop that talent in her education, but the application was turned down flat by the council on the ground that it has no budget for that. That has never happened in Kent before, but it is what happens when large authorities such as Kent are in the hands of a coalition between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. What will happen to the education of that talented youngster and the development of her talent? They care not a bit.

Column 821

Those two groups use the usual range of excuses, saying that it is because of the Government's actions and that it is all so unfair. Originally, I put it down to inexperience, incompetence or a mixture of both. That seemed quite a reasonable answer to their extraordinary behaviour. However, I am coming increasingly to the view that not only is it a conspiracy at the expense of the people of Kent and the education of all our children, but that that conspiracy extends far further. We have heard what has happened in Devon, where budgets have been deliberately underfunded despite the alternative budget presented by experienced Conservative county councillors. Hon. Members will know of case after case of similar goings on in councils up and down the country.

The conspiracy between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats seems to be based on the belief that if they short-change the schools and bleat about Government cuts, parents will rise up and blame the Government. That may have had a little to do with the local election results earlier this month. So on that score it was cynically successful. What is left in the wake of that conspiracy is the wreckage of our youngsters' education-- including that talented girl to whom I referred--and pressures on schools that they should not have to face when the money is available. I increasingly think that we are dealing with a political, cynical conspiracy.

What strengthens my view? Recently the accountants for Kent county council announced that there was an underspend of £17 million in the revenue budget for the council, let alone the underspend of £24 million in the capital budget. Although it is now the second month of the financial year, Conservative county councillors in Kent quite properly tabled an amendment asking that £3.8 million of that £17 million underspend--that is all that is required--be put into the school budgets in Kent so that they would know that the funding was available and so that, in the minority of cases, they would not have to take the drastic action of dismissing teachers. That is a sensible solution based on the best for the education of our children in Kent.

A detailed budget was laid out by the Conservative group on Kent county council, but it was curtailed without proper debate and was voted down by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups.

What happened to the amendment to harness £3.8 million from the £17 million underspend of last year? The Labour and Liberal Democrat groups--it is easy to confuse them given the way in which they carry out their so-called work in Kent--decided that they did not want to debate it. However, they dare not turn it down because it is so logical and is supported by the people of Kent. They decided to filibuster and fob it off to a committee. The next meeting is on 22 June. That means that it will be a month before our schools know whether a solution will be found for their problems.

As you know, Madam Speaker, I am the last to complain about the party politics in which we indulge ourselves from time to time, but we are talking about the education of our children--I mean "our children" because my children attend state schools in Kent, as do the children of other hon. Members up and down the county and the country. We should not play politics with the education of our children and that is what the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups are doing in Kent.

Column 822

I hope that the Labour and Liberal Democrat spokesmen will roundly condemn what has happened in Kent and that at the very least they will instruct their groups in Kent to look at this matter and put the money that is available into our schools for the education of our children.

10.14 am

Mrs. Diana Maddock (Christchurch): I am sure that hon. Members will join me in sending our sincere sympathies to the friends and family of those who lost their lives or were injured in the tragic coach crash yesterday. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that a coach carrying 29 members of Christchurch Royal British Legion overturned after they had been out for a pleasant day in Wales. I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that certain matters are looked into before the recess.

I had given notice that I intended to ask a private notice question later today. However, in view of the sad death of a previous Prime Minister, I thought that it would be more appropriate to raise the matter this morning and I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to do so.

Only two weeks ago I was celebrating VE day in Christchurch with many of those who were involved in the accident. Various questions arise in our minds as a result of the accident. Over some time, questions have been asked in general about coach safety. Often an accident has nothing to do with roadworthiness, but I should like to draw the House's attention to some figures provided last year in answer to parliamentary questions about coach safety. Unacceptable numbers of coaches failed the annual test; in the last year for which I have figures, 73,000 tests were carried out. Initially, there were over 27,000 failures and the final number of failures was over 13, 000. I hope that the Minister responsible will look into that now that we have had yet another tragic accident.

Much has been said about seat belts and, at the moment, we do not know exactly what happened yesterday. It would be premature to say what we think happened when we do not know the truth. We hear that there were some seat belts fitted to the coach, but the impact yesterday was such that the roof of the coach was crushed. That raises questions about the strength of the upper structure of our coaches. The coach involved was about nine years old and I hope that the Minister will look at the existing regulations dealing with the strength of coach roofs.

In view of yet another tragic accident, there are three matters that need to be considered. First, we need to know why so many of our coaches fail their annual tests. Secondly, we need to know why the roof of this coach was crushed and, thirdly, we need to know whether seat belts play a role. I know that that was looked at last year and I understand that there are certain difficulties over legislation in Europe.

It is particularly poignant that those who survived the last war have lost their lives in this tragic way and I hope that the Minister will look into the matter with great urgency and set things in motion before the Whitsun recess.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Amess. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member wish to speak, or is he just moving around the Chamber?

Mr. David Amess (Basildon): I am not ready yet.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall call Mr. Clappison.

Column 823

10.19 am

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on a matter that is of particular importance to my constituents, that is, the future of the assisted places scheme. Currently, 29,000 pupils nationally are helped by the scheme. There is a concentration of places in my constituency, where 411 pupils enjoy its benefits. I admit that not all of them come from my constituency, but a substantial number of them do. In any case, wherever they come from, they are all being educated in my constituency. Also, a number of children from my constituency go to schools outside it to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, I am anxious to emphasise the value of the scheme to my constituents and also to highlight its importance nationally.

When we last debated the matter in the House, the Opposition spokesman complained, among other things, that there was little public awareness of the scheme and that not enough members of the public even knew of its existence. He quoted an opinion poll showing that only 40 per cent. of the public had heard of the scheme. Of course, it is a matter of subjective judgment, but I happen to think that 40 per cent. is a rather large proportion of those interviewed in any opinion poll actually being aware of the matter being surveyed.

The Opposition spokesman omitted to mention another opinion poll finding-- it may have come from the same poll--relating to public approval of the scheme. The poll showed that of those who were aware of its existence, a substantial majority approved of it. When the figures were broken down by party affiliation, they showed a clear majority of supporters of all parties expressing approval. Indeed, 55 per cent. of Labour party supporters said that they approved of the scheme, while only 27 per cent. said that they disapproved--a clear majority of 2:1.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my hon. Friend think it ironic that the Labour party opposes the assisted places scheme, even though it is one of the most egalitarian schemes in education? Did he read the column written by Matthew Parris in The Times today? He pointed out an interesting dichotomy when he said that the Labour party claimed that if the scheme was discontinued, thousands of pounds would be available for the employment of more teachers, yet it failed to understand that the pupils who currently benefit from the scheme would then have to go into the state education sector, so those additional teachers would be required anyway-- resulting in no net saving.

Mr. Clappison: I am tempted to say that great minds think alike, but I am not sure who the great minds are in this case because my hon. Friend has anticipated some of the points that I had intended to make--and in particular my next point, which he put so succinctly. It is the supporters of the Labour party who benefit particularly and considerably from the scheme. Why does the Labour party want to do away with the scheme when so many of its supporters benefit from it? Left-wing commentators and Labour Members have tried to construct an elaborate sociological analysis to show that it is not Labour party supporters who benefit from the scheme. One survey quoted described those who benefit as culturally middle class. Other people have said that they are middle-class, single-parent families--horror of horrors.

Column 824

That may or may not be so, but it is certainly true that those on the left wing of academic politics are far more inclined than Conservative Members to pin labels on people. I am not especially interested in the cultural, social or any other feature of the backgrounds of those who benefit from the scheme. The important point for the Conservative party is that they are people who would not otherwise have had the opportunity to benefit. It should be clearly understood that the scheme benefits people whose incomes are not especially high by today's standards--some 80 per cent. have below average income. I was told yesterday in a parliamentary answer that 42 per cent. of parents get free places on the scheme because their income is less than £9,300. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a very moderate income. Therefore, the sociological arguments do not carry much weight.

The Labour party's economic arguments are not much better. During Education questions yesterday, Labour Members said that the scheme was a way of propping up foundering private schools. That argument has been used before and conveniently ignores the fact that many of the schools in the scheme are extremely popular and massively oversubscribed. In my constituency, about 350 of the 411 places are offered by the Haberdasher's schools for boys and for girls. I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who is in the Chamber, was educated at Haberdasher's. Indeed, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have attended that eminent institution.

My personal knowledge of the Haberdasher's schools is that they could fill their assisted places many times over with pupils whose parents could afford to pay the full fees. However, the schools value the assisted places for a number of important reasons and they are prepared to play a full part in the scheme. The argument of Labour Members simply does not hold water. I could cite a list of schools taking part in the scheme--St. Paul's, Westminster and Dulwich college are a few examples of schools in reasonably close proximity to my constituency--that are of such quality that they attract huge numbers of applicants, so it is certainly not a case of propping up foundering schools.

I come now to the argument about the cost of the scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) just mentioned. The Opposition spokesman said yesterday that if the scheme were scrapped, state schools could employ an additional 5,000 teachers. That figure is wrong because the entire cost of the scheme could not possibly provide that number of teachers. It was a gross underestimate of the cost of providing a teacher. The Opposition also ignore the fact that pupils being educated under the scheme would have to be educated in the maintained sector if the scheme were scrapped.

We need to examine the true difference between the cost of an assisted place and the cost of a place in the maintained sector. That has varied over the years and sometimes the difference in cost has not been very great. Even when there is a difference in cost, as there is currently, I believe that that cost is well worth paying to provide choice, opportunity and diversity in our education system. I am sure that if that view was put to the fair-minded people who were interviewed in the opinion poll to which I referred earlier, most of them would agree.

Column 825

Assisted places are a welcome contribution to educational choice and diversity in my constituency. Those who have the benefit of such places, whom I meet through my surgeries and otherwise, tell me of the importance and value that they put on those places. They are provided in addition to a great deal of other educational diversity and excellence in my constituency. More than 6,000 pupils attend grant- maintained schools, with some of them coming from as far afield as Islington. Many of those schools are excellent and are receiving good reports from Ofsted.

The Opposition have put the assisted places scheme under direct threat. It is ironic that their only firm pledge on education--out of all the pledges that they could have made--is to abolish the assisted places scheme. That is a shame and it is very sad. Indeed, in many ways it is out of keeping with the old Labour tradition of trying to create the opportunity of a good education for people who would not otherwise have received one.

The Opposition's attitude is also ironic in view of the number of people on low incomes who benefit from the scheme. When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) proposed putting VAT on school fees, which would have affected people on higher incomes who could afford to pay the full fees, there was an outcry and the proposal was rapidly withdrawn. The Labour party will not withdraw its pledge to abolish the scheme, which helps people on lower incomes, which is sad. Indeed, if that policy were ever implemented, it would be sad for future generations on lower incomes in my constituency, who would have the opportunity of attending certain schools taken away from them.

In future generations, if Opposition Members were in a position to carry out their intentions, brothers and sisters of children who obtain assisted places would lose the opportunity to go to the same school as their siblings. Opposition Members would deprive children of opportunities that they would otherwise enjoy. That would be rather a shame, as I am sure my constituents would agree. I put on record my support for the assisted places scheme. The opposition of Labour Members to the scheme deserves to be highlighted. People on lower incomes and Labour supporters, 2:1 of whom are in favour of the scheme, have a right to know that the Labour party is bent on taking away their opportunities for no good reason, as I hope that I have demonstrated. Its arguments are not the real reason for the party's hostility to the assisted places scheme. The real reason is sheer ideological hostility towards independent education, which in the case of assisted places would take away valuable opportunities that the Conservative Government have provided.

10.31 am

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): I assure the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that as someone who failed his 11- plus, known in Scotland as the quallies, I shall certainly not be discussing my early academic career.

Before the House adjourns, I hope that the Leader of the House, with his customary courtesy, will attempt to deal with a couple of questions about the Brent Spar

Column 826

incident and the Greenpeace occupation of the installation. The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to answer the questions himself, but I should be grateful if he would pass them to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry.

I should like to ask about the Government's proposed framework policy document on abandonment programmes for offshore installations. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure consultation with interested parties in Scotland, such as the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which have most to lose or gain from an abandonment proposal? Will the right hon. Gentleman pass on my concern about the recent decision of the Minister for Industry and Energy to relax to 5 m the minimum water clearance above any platform remaining in situ in the North sea, compared with the 75 m currently obtaining but applied in only one case so far? That could have a disastrous effect for our fishermen. This morning's edition of The Herald carries a large article on the Greenpeace occupation of Brent Spar, which is entitled:

"Oil Company Reclaims Brent Spar".

That reclamation was achieved with the assistance of Grampian police officers. The article says:

"Mr. Heinz Rothermund, Shell's managing director, said Greenpeace and other organisations pointed to problems and Shell respected that.

Many things were being done world-wide thanks to the fact that problems had been pointed out, but as industrial organisations they were paid to find solutions and compromise and evaluations were required."

Mr. Rothermund is speaking with a forked tongue because the conduct of his company in the gulf of Mexico is entirely different from its proposed conduct in the disposal of Brent Spar. I accuse the company, its board of directors and senior executives of sheer hypocrisy. It has removed completely 20 installations from the gulf of Mexico. It is American federal law to remove redundant installations from such waters.

Shell has had to comply with American law, but because of the British Government's lax implementation of part I of the Petroleum Act 1987 such companies, with Shell leading, will leave their installations in the North sea, to the detriment of our fishermen. Fishermen have been treated very badly in this affair. The Government are accused of adopting an astonishingly lenient approach to the removal of such structures. Brent Spar should be brought ashore, dismantled and its recyclable elements recycled. Shell is trying to get away with a cheap option. The Government's failure in that regard and the disgraceful behaviour of Shell's senior executives provoked the Greenpeace occupation of Brent Spar.

Brent Spar is an old, redundant oil storage tank, which from the sea bed to the surface extends to some 109 m. It contains a dreadful toxic chemical mix that Shell cannot analyse but is happy to put into what it says are safe deep waters. For such materials, there is no such thing as a safe deep -water burial. In a written answer to a question that I tabled, the Minister for Industry and Energy said: "In accordance with section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987 the President of the Board of Trade approved the Brent Spar abandonment programme on 20 December 1994."--[ Official Report , 15 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 27. ]

He went on to claim that environmental considerations and possible interference with navigation and fisheries had been analysed and there had been a comparative assessment of risk, technical feasibility and cost.

Column 827

The question of cost looms large in abandonment programmes. The Government encourage international oil and gas companies to leave their structures--or many of them--in place. They are not, however, encouraging such practice in the southern areas of the North sea, where the waters are shallower and the technical difficulties of removing the structures are much less complicated. Installations should be removed from those waters and the beds should be swept clean so that our fishermen, who have fished the waters for hundreds of years, may return to fish their traditional fishing grounds. That is especially important given what is happening elsewhere in the fishing industry.

Shell Expro, aided and abetted by the Government, is seeking to dodge its obligations. Coming from a fishing family, I obviously have a special interest in the matter, but I hasten to assure you, Madam Speaker, and the House that no money whatever is involved, just strong family ties. A brother of mine is currently fishing off the northern coast of Norway on one of our freezer trawlers. Shell Expro has chosen the cheap option for dumping the huge Brent Spar installation. It gave the game away in a publication which it produced some time ago, in which it said:

"Onshore scrapping would require some 360,000 man-hours of work. The complexity and labour intensive nature of the operations means that they would be very costly and expose personnel to greater risk."

Yet in the gulf of Mexico, Shell has removed more than 900 installations from those admittedly shallow waters. Some of the structures in the gulf of Mexico are akin to some of those on our continental shelf, such as the type in Norwegian waters. That is what the company is concerned about. Bringing the installation ashore would cost 360,000 man hours of work whereas, to use the company's words:

"The environmental impact of the sunken Spar will be limited and contained. The site of the sinking is likely to be in water over 2, 000 metres deep and more than 240 kms from land."

From my knowledge of the fishing industry, I can tell the House that no trawler anywhere in the north Atlantic fishes in water that deep, but the eventual dispersal of toxic materials will damage marine life.

The document states that dispersal at sea--the dumping in deep water--will require 52,000 man hours of work. That difference in man hours is obviously focusing the minds of Shell's directors and chief executives, who are saving money, having made many millions of pounds out of the offshore industry. It has been estimated, incidentally, that bringing the installation ashore would cost about £46 million. Since the mid-1980s, Shell has been involved in a £1.3 billion renovation programme of its offshore operations, so £46 million would not figure very largely in its costs.

I have argued ever since enactment of the Petroleum Act 1987 that such structures should be completely removed from the marine environment. The late Alick Buchanan-Smith was a fine man and a fair-minded adversary who was popular in Scotland and, indeed, south of the border. As a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Petroleum Bill I told him--I thought that he would be here for many more years--that, while I was in the House, I would campaign for the complete removal of such structures, which is permitted under part I of the 1987 Act, which he steered through Committee. The Government have failed the people of Scotland by their refusal to ensure that installations are removed. We are talking about as many as 20 or 30 a year during the

Column 828

next few years, as there are more than 200 in our waters. Contrast our Government's attitude with the American legislative view and the way in which the Norwegians handle such matters.

There is hypocrisy in Shell's actions. The company behaves one way in our waters but, because American federal law forces it to behave in another way, it complies with that law in the gulf of Mexico. The Norwegian Government said that they wanted an installation similar to Brent Spar-- N.V. Frigg--brought ashore for dismantling and recycling. If it is good enough for the Norwegians and their fishermen, why not for Scotland and its fishermen?

Greenpeace has informed me that complete removal of the installation would cost £46 million, which represents only 3.5 per cent. of the money that Shell is spending in the Brent field. We must remember that Shell has assets of more than $11 billion. My fear is that, if Shell is allowed to get away with this unsavoury decision, an unfortunate precedent will be established for others to follow. Hamilton Oil and Gas demonstrated what should be done plainly enough by the complete removal of the Forbes platform. It plans to remove completely the bigger Esmond platform and ancillary facilities, so it can be done. We shall have to face up to that fact when the time comes for those 200-odd structures to be abandoned. They will be removed from the central and southern North sea and they should be removed from northern waters.

I come from a fishing family and I fully support the view of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on the matter. In a recently published document, it states:

"Politicians of all Parties will hopefully be reasonably familiar with the long history of difficulty which has been the lot of our Fishermen in competing for access to the waters of the UK Continental Shelf with the North Sea Oil and Gas Industry and with our policy that our forbearance and co-operation with the Oil Operators should be recognised by the acceptance of both them and the Government of an obligation to remove entirely from the sea all installations which cease to be in use. That standpoint has regrettably never been accepted as a general principle and in recent years changes in International Law, heavily influenced by the UK Government, have reached the stage where partial removal of offshore installations will be permitted upon their Abandonment".

Alick Buchanan-Smith said that, where possible, such structures should be removed. He pointed out to me that concrete structures are enormously difficult to move, which I accept; it is a fact of life. The Norwegians are finding similar difficulty with the removal of some of their massive concrete structures, but there has been genuine consultation between the Norwegian Government and associations representing Norwegian fishermen who fish in their waters. There has not been any genuine consultation between the UK Government and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations or, more importantly in this regard, with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The issue is very important and it is causing a great deal of concern in Scotland, not merely among Greenpeace activists but in small fishing communities where there are no, or very few, alternative employment opportunities.

I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that the fishermen have played the game. They said that it was important for oil and gas to be brought ashore. It has helped the Shetland economy enormously over the years,

Column 829

as it has also helped elsewhere--one thinks of Orkney, Fraserburgh and Peterhead and, indeed, of Aberdeen. Many thousands of people are working in the industry.

In my constituency, two rigs are being converted. I hope to see as many as 11 rigs coming into the firth of Clyde in the next two years for conversion work. No one has to tell me, or our fishermen, how important the offshore oil and gas industry is and has been to our economy. We could debate how the money has had to be spent--on the massive number of unemployed people-- but that is another story. Part I of the 1987 Act should be used more radically to ensure the complete removal not merely of the installations but of redundant pipeline networks. They, too, prevent fishermen from fishing the waters that they and their fathers, grandfathers and

great-grandfathers fished.

Peter Morrison--a Minister who followed on from the late Alick Buchanan- Smith--said in a speech in Aberdeen, which was widely publicised in Scotland, that the abandonment programmes for the installations could generate many thousands of jobs along the east coast of Scotland and later on the west coast. He said that redundant shipyard workers and others might find employment in such programmes, but that simply has not happened.

The American experience is entirely different. More than 900 installations have been completely removed from the gulf of Mexico. We have the shabby sight of Shell, BP and the other companies that used those natural resources to make massive profits seedily dodging their obligations to other users of the maritime environment, particularly fishermen.

Following enactment of the Petroleum Act, I had hoped that we could say to our fishermen that one day they could fish those waters again. I hoped that the seas would be swept clean of structures and redundant pipeline networks, and that they would be able to drop their gear on to the sea bed without it becoming snagged, as often happens today, by materials from the hugely important offshore industry.

I hope that the consultation exercise that the Government are planning will be genuine, and not the kind of thing that the Scottish Office--under its present regime--undertakes. I hope that there will be genuine consultation with fishermen and others so that we can decide which installations may have to stay in place, such as the concrete structures. I hope that a radical implementation of the 1987 Act will mean that other structures can be removed and brought ashore in the interests of our fishermen. They deserve nothing less.

10.50 am

Mr. David Amess (Basildon): I am glad to be called, Madam Speaker, as I felt earlier as though I had been caught out making a false bid at an auction.

I join colleagues in paying tribute to the noble Lord Wilson of Rievaulx who dominated political affairs in this country when I was a child. In every sense he was a great politician.

Column 830

I should like the House to consider four matters, the first of which is identity cards. Some years ago, I successfully moved a ten-minute Bill to allow the introduction of voluntary identity cards. That was the first occasion on which the House did not oppose the concept of identity cards. I proposed a system of voluntary identity cards because I felt that if the House and the country were not prepared for a compulsory system, a voluntary system would be better than nothing.

People accept that they must have birth certificates and death certificates, but I cannot understand why the bit in between is not recorded. When we knock on doors--as we recently did during the local elections--we find that the general public are concerned about crime. There is no doubt in my mind that identity cards will help in the fight against crime. I shall be astonished if it is true that new Labour is going to oppose the introduction of such cards.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the 1951 Conservative Government scrapped identity cards as the last remnant of the socialist Government that had been in power from 1945 to 1951?

Mr. Amess: My difficulty is that I was born in 1952, so I cannot personally recall that. I am looking to the future, and I do not think that what happened in 1951 is paramount in the minds of the British public at the moment.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): Does my hon. Friend agree that even en ventre de sa me re he was a Tory?

Mr. Amess: There is no answer to that. The Conservative Government have not claimed credit for the national lottery, but I hope that we will claim credit for the sensible introduction of a compulsory identity card.

My second point is well timed, because I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is present. The Fenchurch Street line is notorious for offering a poor and inadequate service to my constituents and others in Essex. I am accused of being obsessed with my constituency, but it seems that Opposition Members and Front-Bench spokesmen are becoming increasingly obsessed with it. They have recently visited Basildon to talk about the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line. They have not done so in an honest and realistic fashion, and have spread things that are not true. I deplore the way in which they have recently been scaremongering in my constituency.

My constituents could not care less who runs the Fenchurch Street line so long as the trains arrive on time, the carriages are comfortable, the fares are reasonable and the line's operators are mindful of security. That is what they are concerned about, and the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line will deliver those things.

I must say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that I am not entirely happy with the procedures that have been followed hitherto regarding precisely who is being allowed to tender for the line. The wild rumour is that there will be a management buy-out. As a local Member of Parliament, I would not be in favour of that. Some hon. Friends and I took part in a notorious journey five years ago with the present chairman of British Rail, when we were told to catch a train at the wrong time at a station at which the train did not arrive. During that journey, the chairman did not want to talk about services.

Column 831

I believe in leading from the front, and I do not think that the present management of British Rail can reassure my constituents that they are the best people to run the railway line. I am totally in favour of the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line, but I am not in favour of a management buy-out, which I believe will be an unfortunate method of embarking upon privatisation. Many other companies are more capable of delivering a fine service to my constituents, and they should be treated in a fair and even-handed fashion.

The third of my four points concerns the concept of education, which some of my hon. Friends have mentioned this morning. I have set myself a target in the past year of visiting every educational establishment in my constituency. That may seem an easy task, but there are 54 of them. I am delighted to tell the House that I have only three more to visit.

Although I shall wait until the end of my visits to produce a paper on how education in Basildon has shaped up in the past year, I wish to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to all the people involved in education in my constituency. Some weeks ago, the heads of the schools in my constituency met the Secretary of State for Education, and described to my right hon. Friend the issues that were concerning them. All of them welcomed the constructive debate that took place.

Only last Thursday I was privileged to present 51 certificates at Basildon college at the culmination of the college's adult learners' week. It was a moving event, at which 51 people were presented with certificates for achieving great things. They were not getting degrees from Oxford or Cambridge universities, but the awards were every bit as good as any other award that I have been privileged to hand out.

The House needs to concentrate on parenting. This is a difficult subject, and it is a difficult message for any politician to deliver. The majority of parents do a wonderful job for their children, but there is no doubt that some parents need help to understand the full responsibilities of what it entails to have children. The problems that hon. Members hear in their surgeries--on housing, education, crime or general welfare--can all be traced back to problems in parenting. I hope that my party will take that fact on board. The Opposition are always setting up commissions and two years down the line we get some paper on them. I hope that my party will now embark on a national campaign to deliver some sort of assistance in parenting.

I have an axe to grind about nursery education. The Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), and I share the same county council--Essex county council--which is trying to deliver nursery education. That is all well and good but, as I have two children who were born in September, I want something done about rising fives. The current demand for nursery education, apart from the problems faced by parents who must go to work, encapsulates the difficulties that some people experience in coping with the responsibility of being parents. I hope that the House will consider carefully how we can put right the failures of past Governments, past teaching methods and past liberal attitudes, and ensure that every couple who decide to have children accept that that decision brings huge responsibilities.

Some hon. Members may think that this is an unfortunate occasion on which to be partisan but I feel that I must comment on new and old Labour. The crux of

Column 832

my remarks concerns hung councils. I am pleased to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir. M. Neubert) because his constituency makes up a third of the London borough of Havering, which has a hung council. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House shares with me Essex county council, which is a hung council. As from last Thursday, my constituency, which shares the local authority of Basildon with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), also has a hung council.

Having read the election addresses carefully, I feel that many socialist candidates who stood under the ticket of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were deceiving the general public for various reasons. Essex county council, which has been a hung council for two years, has been an absolute disaster and people in Essex are rapidly regretting it. With no consultation whatever, it has thrown out community care, which had been well established by the Conservatives in consultation with six of the bodies involved. As a result, the constituencies of many of my Essex colleagues are now suffering from bed-blocking. People cannot get the right accommodation; waiting lists for operations are getting longer; and waiting times in hospitals are constantly increasing.

Never mind new or old Labour, it is about time that they and the Liberal Democrats accepted responsibility when they are in power. Given the number of county and district councils that they control and European seats which they occupy, they can no longer blame the Government but must accept responsibility for their inadequacies. What they have done in Essex is wicked.

Sir Michael Neubert (Romford): My hon. Friend has good reason to be personally aggrieved at the activities of certain prominent Labour personalities on Havering council. Is not one unfortunate consequence of hung councils and coalition politics that they allow minority parties access to public funds, which are used in anti-Government and therefore effectively party political propaganda, as has happened in Havering? To explain away the consequences of its overspending, Havering council implied, with widespread publicity, that Government grant had been cut by £17 million. When that is combined with the development of a machine at the town hall and investment of £500,000 a year--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye in the debate. Interventions are supposed to be brief and to the point.

Next Section

  Home Page