| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. We spent four hours on the first group of amendments, discussing a matter that had been debated extensively already. The Government are not seeking to change more than one of the amendments that have come from another place.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): Does the Leader of the House not recognise that, in the time that she is going to make available, it would not be possible to read into the record the details of the amendments that have still to be considered, much less debate them or give them serious consideration?
Does the right hon. Lady not understand also that, although the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament is well established, the programme motion shows contempt for the British public, and that they will note that?
Mrs. Beckett:
That is absolute rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman is not a new Member of Parliament, and he knows perfectly well that there has probably never been legislation for which it would have been possible to read into the record all the details of the amendments and still complete the debate. Moreover, in Standing Committee, on Report, in Lords Committee and on Third Reading--
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
There are 900 amendments.
Mrs. Beckett:
There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to shout, as I can hear him quite well. The vast majority of the amendments tabled to the Bill at all its stages were tabled by the Opposition. That is perfectly proper, and I make no complaint about it. However, if we tried to read amendments into the record, we really would be wasting our time.
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
That is a contempt of the House.
Mrs. Beckett:
The right hon. Gentleman is displaying contempt, as well as bad manners.
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge):
I have been involved in the deliberations on the Bill at every stage of its progress through the House. I was in the Chamber throughout this afternoon's discussion and can tell the Leader of the House that there was no filibustering. There is a huge amount of detail in the Bill, which is very important to my constituents and to the people of London. Will the right hon. Lady consider whether it would be more appropriate for the House to continue debating the Bill tomorrow, instead of debating family-friendly employment?
Mrs. Beckett:
I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman what I have told the House already. The Government offered a programme motion to achieve
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport):
There was laughter in the House when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read the list of amendments just before 7 o'clock. That had nothing to do with the dignity of the Chair. It stemmed from incredulity at the contempt that the Government have shown to the House in proposing to force through a Bill on which 51 groups of amendments are still outstanding. The group that we are currently discussing contains 22 separate amendments. We are debating 197 pages of amendments. Does the right hon. Lady really think that that is good government?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am sorry to have to say that I understand that the hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate. I would simply point out that we have looked into the issue. He should know that the vast majority of the amendments are technical. He must also know, as he has been a Member for a long time, that there is nothing unprecedented about what the Government are doing. Many pieces of legislation have, unfortunately, required hundreds of amendments at this stage. I repeat that the Government sought a programme motion and sought to make orderly progress. That has not been possible and so we have to take steps.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. That is quite enough on a single-item Government statement.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an unprecedented occasion--a Government Bill with 900 Government amendments. Comparatively few Members wished to question the Leader of the House on her totally inadequate statement. The right hon. Lady did not even tell the House of how much time we will have to devote to the Bill on Monday. We are to go away for the weekend with no idea of how much time we will have to debate the Bill, still less the Food Standards Bill, which is also important. We simply do not know what is happening on Monday.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. This was a single-item business statement. The other matters--the suitability of what has happened and so forth--can be debated on the allocation of time motion on Monday.
Campbeltown-Ballycastle Ferry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mrs. McGuire.]
7.12 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the future of the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry service and I welcome the Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), to the Dispatch Box. It gives me some confidence to see him there as he knows something about the subject and will, I hope, understand what I am talking about. For that reason, it will not be necessary to go into the detail of the background.
Suffice it to say, as the Minister will recall, that expenditure was approved for infrastructure at Campbeltown and similarly for Ballycastle and Rathlin island following various meetings that we had with the Northern Ireland Transport Minister way back in October 1994. However, the then Secretary of State for Scotland was determined that if a link were established, it should be run by a private operator. He was most reluctant to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to take it on for various reasons, as spelled out in a letter to me in 1995.
I draw the Minister's attention to the then Secretary of State's answer. He acknowledged that Caledonian MacBrayne was
Need I remind the Minister of his own words in the Official Report of 3 July 1996? During Scottish questions, the hon. Gentleman asked the then Scottish Minister:
The inaugural voyage on 1 July 1997 was launched by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), now the First Minister in Scotland. There was much rejoicing and good will, and many expressions of confidence and support, particularly from the right hon. Gentleman. There can be no doubt that the service has bestowed both financial and community benefits on the Kintyre area during the difficult years during which it has run. In the first year, there was no prior promotion of the service. The second was a disaster for tourism because of
the strong pound, the world cup, atrocious weather and an unsettled situation in Northern Ireland. Kintyre also had to contend with the closure of its main road following a huge landslide.
I cannot stress too strongly the need for the service to continue for the benefit of both Antrim and Argyll. I, of course, know more about Kintyre, an area that relies on primary industries such as agriculture, which, particularly in the dairy sector, is currently suffering great stress. The sight of more and more farmers having to give up is too heartbreaking to contemplate. It is also difficult to attract inward investment. The closure of the Machrihanish air base and the Campbeltown shipyard were real blows to the community. There is a high rate of long-term unemployment.
Shipping services between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are properly the concern of the Westminster Parliament, which is why we are holding this debate. The Campbeltown to Ballycastle service connects two fragile parts of the UK that are encountering considerable difficulties. The service unites a common culture, offering opportunities to strengthen ties not only between Antrim and the west of Scotland, but with the whole of Ireland.
What is to be done? In search of a way forward, Argyll and Bute council and Moyle district council held talks last Friday with Hamish Ross of the Argyll and Antrim Steam Packet Company and with Argyll and the Islands Enterprise. The promotion of tourism is vital to the service. Although better marketing this year, co-ordinated by the local tourist board, resulted in a marked increase in the number of vehicles using the service this summer--some 23 per cent. more vehicles used the service in July, and the August figure was up 19 per cent.--the route still operates at a loss.
The ferry's introduction has had an effect. Bob Chicken--whom I know the Minister has met--has said, on behalf of the Kintyre marketing group, that it is absolutely essential for the morale of the area that the ferry service should continue. Much depends on business morale, which was substantially boosted on the launch of the service. The area got new investment in hotels and previous negative reports from Campbeltown were replaced by very positive ones.
There is no doubt that a strengthened overall marketing strategy is needed on both sides of the water, with a pricing structure that provides a range of more competitive fares to potential ferry users. I was grateful to the roads service in Belfast for responding to requests from me and others for better signs to the ferry. Earlier this year that work was completed, with 15 signs giving directions to the ferry. That was welcome.
Particularly at the beginning, I was also keen to promote the transport of freight, including animals and the export of sheep, cattle and pigs. Kintyre farmers, who strongly supported the service, wanted to build up business with the Province. I then discovered that Ballycastle was not designated as an import port. I asked the then Scottish Minister, Lord Sewel, to take it up with the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. Eventually, the import licences were amended. I was grateful for that, but, of course, there has been little benefit to the farming industry since.
There is another freight option. I have a letter from the director of transport for Argyll and Bute council, who says:
Can we find a way forward for the company to continue? I hope that we can. If Sea Containers withdraws, the only option seems to be Caledonian MacBrayne, but how do we get the boat back? As the Minister said in his letter to me:
Kintyre is a very vulnerable area. As Ken Abernethy, the chief executive of Argyll and the Islands Enterprise has stated:
"enjoined, as one of the strategic objectives set by the Secretary of State, to consider, and, where appropriate, exploit commercial opportunities outwith the approved services."
However, he went on to say:
"The role of the public sector in the economy should be restricted, and services whenever possible should be provided by the private sector rather than the public sector."
At the time, in the absence of any real interest from private sector operators, it seemed sensible to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to take on the route. It had the experience, the staff, the recruitment base and the boat.
"Is not the main obstacle that Ministers must overcome their quite irrational prejudice against anything operating in the public sector? Does not everyone involved in the project . . . agree that the sensible thing to do is to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to operate a vessel that it owns?"--[Official Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 970.]
All that is history. Fortunately, Sea Containers made an offer to run the service through its subsidiary, the Argyll and Antrim Steam Packet Company. The company entered into a contract to operate for three years during July, August and September, and, if possible, to extend the service to nine months a year from the third year. That has not happened, and it is no secret that the company has not broken even.
"An option, presently being explored with forestry interests in Argyll and Bute which could significantly aid the financial viability of the service, is the establishment of a complementary freight service between Campbeltown and Troon to facilitate the shipment of timber to the pulp mill at Irvine."
Troon is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), so both she and the Minister know all about it. I do not know whether that idea is feasible, but it is certainly worth examining. A massive amount of timber is due to be harvested in Argyll and some at least should be transported by sea because the damage to the roads and hundreds of small bridges will result in huge repair and maintenance costs. That is yet another burden for a cash-strapped council.
"If Caledonian MacBrayne wish to seek permission to develop services outside their traditional area, they would, of course, require to seek the permission of the Scottish Executive as the First Minister is now the sole shareholder in the company."
Of course, as the sole shareholder the First Secretary has the power, but I would expect the Minister to do all that he can with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish Executive to ensure that this service continues.
"We do not know of any better way of changing the framework of the economy than retaining the direct employment and the throughput of visitors generated by the ferry."
I know that the Minister is sympathetic. He said so in his recent letter to me. So is Dr. James Hunter, the chairman of Highlands and the Islands Enterprise. In a letter to me last year, he said:
"Argyll and the Islands Enterprise have recently agreed to make Kintyre their top priority."
However, the company cannot make Kintyre a top priority without the proper support. I am told that support cannot be forthcoming because the ferry is not a lifeline service. I suggest that it is and should be made a lifeline service just as much as the Dunoon-Gourock service is. Kintyre is a peninsula. The people in Campbeltown always feel that they are at the end of the line and that they might as well be an island. I look for the service to be developed into a lifeline service.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |