| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.51 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: This is a bad Bill, which has been inadequately debated. We did not need a guillotine, and I think that the House of Commons should have had the opportunity to examine the matter in detail. When the issue was last debated on the Floor of the House, we needed more debating time between each chop of the guillotine. This evening, the Home Secretary said that he did not have time to reply to an important debate on compensation, even though he was cut off by his own guillotine.
It is extraordinary that some hon. Members seem to think that it is possible to legislate, and that they must do so in haste, to prevent maniacs going berserk and committing atrocities. Tonight's 10 o'clock news carried the story of an individual who went berserk with a machete in a children's playground, allegedly because he felt the same way about society as those who committed the atrocities in Hungerford and Dunblane. In such circumstances, the futility of trying to legislate in this manner becomes obvious.
It is equally clear that one must take due account of the interests of those who engage in the sport of shooting. I hope that the other place will, first, consider properly the question of compensation; and, secondly, examine Lord Cullen's proposals carefully. I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who said that it was wrong for the Government to differ from Lord Cullen's report without giving hon. Members the opportunity to discuss the matter. I hope that the other place will also examine the dismantling proposals.
Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West):
I have not spoken this evening until now because I felt that I had been steamrollered, like many other hon. Members, by the emotion of the subject. The people who suffered in Dunblane--the parents--have every right to demand everything that they feel will do something to justify the loss of their children. We have a different responsibility in the House. We have to take a view that is weighed. We have to make judgments.
I believe that the Bill is totally flawed. There was an investigation by a noble Lord, who went into every part of the subject, and one of his recommendations was the dismantling of weapons--the keeping of weapons in separate places. We discussed that earlier this evening, but if we are talking about increasing public safety--we are not talking about the emotional issue of what we can do to help to solve the hurt of the parents of Dunblane--we have to look at how we can make the public safe, and one way to do that is by dismantling weapons and keeping them in separate places.
Lord Cullen made 23 other recommendations that are right to be put into law, but we are turning our faces against his recommendation for dismantling, and on the most spurious grounds that I can possibly imagine. I know a little about the subject and it is possible to dismantle weapons and keep them in different parts quite safely and in a way that would genuinely protect the public.
We had the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which is also flawed. It did not prevent Dunblane. I said at the time that we should make it more difficult for people to appeal against a police decision, and the shootists did not support that, but that is now one of Lord Cullen's 23 recommendations. That alone will make it much safer for the public in future. Had that been done after Hungerford, we would not be discussing tonight how to increase public safety.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
Like the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), I have not contributed to any debate on the Bill so far, but I feel moved to do so because I have been following it closely, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, through the columns of Hansard.
I have received dozens of letters from my constituents--all but one are opposed to the proposed legislation. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made wise, constructive and considered comments. We
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1176
The House has not been treated well by the Government. I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. Why did we not have a discussion on the Cullen report and a considered debate following that so that before legislation was drafted the House could have suggested in a considered, sensible and responsible way the best way to proceed? I think that I pick up the words of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West when I say that any violent death--
It being 12 midnight, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 November and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Mr. Budgen:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that when you lowered the guillotine on Third Reading, at least six hon. Members who wished to speak were prevented from doing so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It is not for the Chair to judge how many hon. Members subsequently wished to speak.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Coe.]
Mr. Jonathan Aitken (South Thanet):
Despite the lateness of the hour, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to my constituents. I am also grateful to the Minister, who will reply with his usual courtesy.
The debate marks a small milestone in parliamentary history, because it is the first time that the House has debated the capital challenge funding scheme or any bids submitted under it. The fact that the milestone is being passed is not due to any perspicacity on my part; it is simply that the capital challenge fund is completely new. It was born only seven months ago when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a characteristically imaginative move, announced that, over the next three years, £600 million-worth of supplementary approval finance would be made available to help local authorities to fund what were called their top priority capital projects under this new competitive bidding system.
It was also announced that the winners under the bidding system would be those capital projects thatwere
The centrepiece of the Kent bid, which is for £34 million-worth of capital challenge funding, is the Ramsgate harbour approach road, which would cost some £30.6 million, of which £25.9 million would come from capital challenge support finance. Ramsgate is the principal town in my constituency, and the main engine of economic growth and activity in the town is its harbour.
Port Ramsgate, which is the outer harbour of the town, is a great success story. It is Britain's second biggest cross-channel port, and handles approximately 3.5 million passengers a year, plus more than 450,000 cars and 250,000 freight lorries. Moreover, the new parent company of Port Ramsgate, Holyman-Sally Ferries Ltd., is expanding fast.
On Monday, the port will see the arrival of the first of two brand new £24 million high-tech catamaran fast ferries. They will be a great boost to the port of Ramsgate, because, next year, they will operate on the Ramsgate-Ostend route, with up to 16 extra sailings a day. The company forecasts that the new service will attract to Port Ramsgate an additional 1.5 million passengers, an additional 300,000 cars and an additional 140,000 freight lorries over and above the very substantial annual traffic figures that I quoted a moment ago.
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1179
Port Ramsgate is growing, expanding and flourishing, and it is a success story in today's competitive cross-channel marketplace. The unfortunate recent fire in the channel tunnel reminds us that that marketplace must be strong, competitive and diversified. But the Port Ramsgate success story is being held back by one constraint: the lack of a proper port access road.
My purpose in this short debate is to explain to the Government, and particularly to the Ministers who are responsible for picking the winners of this year's capital challenge bids, the reason why Ramsgate deserves--indeed, urgently needs--a harbour approach road. I shall summarise those reasons under five headings: the fair play reasons, the transport reasons, the environmental reasons, the economic reasons and the community reasons.
I can be mercifully brief about the fair play reasons, because I set them out in some detail in a speech I made in the House last Friday, in a debate on tourism. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister has been generous and good enough to read that speech. To summarise my argument as succinctly as possible, however, I shall say only that it is monstrously unfair that Ramsgate should be the only channel port in Britain--or in France or Belgium--not to have an access road separating port traffic from the congested town centre.
Only Ramsgate is discriminated against in that manner, contrary to the pledges given by the Government during the passage of the channel tunnel Acts, that there would be equal rights on the proverbial level playing field for all channel ports. That promise has not yet been delivered.
Eurotunnel--the favourite son--has its spanking new M20, bringing its customers to the terminal entrance, at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. Dover has its M2 and its Jubilee way, which lead traffic straight into the port without troubling the regular traffic and citizens of Dover. Only last week, in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, Dover was granted an extra £40 million to improve the Lydden-Dover section of the M2. Only Ramsgate continues to be left out in the cold. That is not right, it is not fair, and it simply does not make sense in transport terms.
As for the transport reasons, in recent years the Government have recognised in principle the importance of Port Ramsgate by designating the roads to it as part of the trans-European network, and by spending serious sums of taxpayers' money on them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), whom I am glad to see in the Chamber--I know that he hopes to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker--I am grateful, as are our constituents, for the £180 million that has been spent so far on dualling the A299 Thanet way from the M2 to Monkton and the A253 from Monkton to the outskirts of Ramsgate. The final sections of the project are now close to completion.
Bewilderingly, however, after spending more than £180 million on the first twenty-one and a half miles of the road, the final one and a half miles of that 23-mile road between Port Ramsgate and the beginning of the M2 motorway have been left as a snarling, growling and dangerous bottleneck. Until that one-and-a-half-mile bottleneck is converted into a proper approach road, the situation will remain a senseless example of the "so near, yet so far" syndrome. It is the equivalent of building
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1180
I now move to the environmental reasons. As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last mile and a half where we need the harbour approach road is an environmental nightmare. The present juggernaut route goes through the town centre, bisecting a conservation area and passing alongside 250 homes, 107 listed buildings, two schools and 16 hotels, pubs and boarding houses. When I raised the subject in an Adjournment debate last year, I described that part of the port access route as a veritable Dante's "Inferno" of noise, pollution, disruption and danger. Those who live in that part of Ramsgate know that that is not an exaggeration.
I am glad that the Kent capital challenge bid states clearly that one of its main objectives is
The lack of a port approach road is holding back local economic growth. The new Kent international business park at Manston, the expanded Haine industrial area and the businesses that are quietly expanding in and around Ramsgate, thanks to the Government's excellent development area status scheme, which has brought much-needed growth to Ramsgate, will all get a boost from a new approach road for the great sea port of Ramsgate. It would be a vote of confidence in the area, not least because, as the Kent bid document says:
The litmus test of the popularity of the road and of the bid is that the community really wants and has fought for the Ramsgate harbour access road. We live in an age
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1181
That this House agrees with the Report [28th November] of the Liaison Committee.--[Mr. Coe.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
That the draft African Development Fund (Seventh Replenishment) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
That the draft International Development Association (Interim Trust Fund) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1177
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.--[Mr. Coe.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Deregulation (Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951 (Repeal)) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 4th November, be approved.--[Mr. Coe.]
Question agreed to.
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7208/95, relating to drinking water; and endorses the Government's objective of amending the proposal so that it is more in line with the best scientific and medical advice on the appropriate standards for drinking water and to ensure that the benefits resulting from the proposal are more proportional to the costs it would impose.
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7312/96, on aid for reconstruction and rehabilitation in the former Yugoslavia, and endorses the Government's view that it provides a necessary and appropriate base for EU expenditure in the former Yugoslavia, and for the transparency of the EU's actions; and takes note of European Community Document No. 1060296, relating to common principles for future contractual relations with certain countries in south-eastern Europe, and endorses the Government's view that it provides a sensible broad approach for the development of EU relations with the countries concerned--[Mr. Coe.]
Question agreed to.
12.1 am
"identified as being of the greatest benefit to their community."
That quotation from the Department of the Environment press release which was issued on 15 May is important. I am delighted by the criteria, because they apply perfectly to Kent county council's capital challenge bid, which was submitted in September under the title "Accessing opportunities in Kent". It is to that subject to which I now turn.
"to bring environmental benefits to Ramsgate town"
as well as to
"encourage investment in the town centre and improve conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, businesses and residents as part of the Ramsgate Renaissance initiative".
Mentioning the investment brings me to the economic reasons for the much-needed harbour approach road. Ramsgate is sadly still one of Britain's unemployment black spots, with an unemployment rate of well over 12 per cent., which is not coming down. One light that shines brightly in the somewhat gloomy scene is Port Ramsgate which, according to paragraph 3.21 of the Kent bid document, creates 1,500 jobs--4.5 per cent. of local employment--and generates about £15 million a year for the local economy. That contribution is well recognised and appreciated in Ramsgate.
"the scheme . . . will have a major impact on increasing local employment opportunities and improving labour market mobility".
Finally, I should like to highlight the community reasons in favour of the Ramsgate harbour access road. I do so with particular emphasis because, as I reminded my hon. Friend the Minister at the start of the debate, his Department's press release at the start of the year, announcing the setting up of the capital challenge scheme, stated that bidders should
"target those capital projects that they have identified as being of greatest benefit to their community".
If that is the basis, the Kent bid deserves to be an outstanding runner in the competition and, I hope, a winner. As I have said, it will benefit the community by reducing unemployment and stimulating the economy, by improving the quality of life in environmental terms and by improving local, national and international transport links.
"Local democracy has played a key part in the development of the scheme. Three alternative schemes were put out to consultation and there was overwhelming support for the present proposals."
That is an accurate comment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |