| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I permitted to speak? I understand that the debate can continue until 7 pm.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is certainly unusual, and the hon. Member knows that it is not customary to speak after the Minister's winding-up speech. If he wishes to make a contribution, however, he may do so. I merely point out what is customary.
6.3 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that reprimand, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the House for not being present earlier. I was attending to other important duties outside the Chamber.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye): Further to that point of order Madam Deputy Speaker, is it not a breach of procedure for a Member to enter the debate after the winding-up speech?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not quite catch what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I was raising the question whether it was a breach of procedure—I know that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is keen to uphold procedure—to come into the debate after the Minister's winding-up speech.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When the House sits on Fridays, as colleagues who assiduously attend will know, is it not
perfectly normal for the Minister to decide at which stage of the debate he or she will intervene; and is it not even more normal for other hon. Members to speak after the Minister? I am not aware of any rule of the House that says that once the Minister has spoken, no one else may speak, particularly if an hour of parliamentary time is left unexpired.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the shadow Leader of the House that I did not say that it was inappropriate or procedurally wrong—merely that it was not the custom to speak after the Minister has wound up the debate. By all means, if he wishes to speak, I am happy to call Sir Nicholas Winterton.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I repeat that I accept your modest reprimand regarding the fact that I was not here for the beginning of the debate and that I wanted to speak after the Leader of the House. However, I want to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am a pragmatist. I believe fervently in the integrity of the House of Commons, and that the House's integrity and independence in dealing with the Executive needs to be improved. Because I am a pragmatist, I shall not oppose the motion. In fact, I proposed his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee at the beginning of this Parliament.
I realise that the Government have a substantial majority in the House. In the end, members of the Government decide what should happen in this place and, for that matter, who should chair Committees. I listened to the response given by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House. Certainly, we will look to the Leader of the House—in his anticipated capacity as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee—to best represent the interests of the House of Commons in dealing with the Executive.
I am Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which sits on the same day of the week as the Modernisation Committee. I shall not oppose the appointment of the Leader of the House as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. His predecessor adjusted the Modernisation Committee's starting time to 3.45 pm on a Wednesday, to assist me in continuing to play a part as a member of that Committee. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his assurance that he will honour the position, tradition, duties and responsibilities of the Procedure Committee, of which I am Chairman, in his capacity as a member—and, I believe, in due course, as Chairman—of the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Swayne: That sounds like a job application.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I shall go further, here on the Floor of the House. I have not indicated as much to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr.
Swayne), but if it is thought appropriate by the Committee, I should be happy to propose the Leader of the House as Chairman—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: It may annoy my hon. Friend, but the Committee exists to represent the best interests of hon. Members in dealing with the Government of the day. At some stage in the future, the Government will be a Conservative and Unionist Government.
David Winnick (Walsall, North): When?
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Shortly.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have enormous affection and regard for him, but it is a great pity that he should be making this speech without having listened to the powerful arguments from his colleagues among Conservative Members as to precisely why what he advocates should not happen.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I repeat that I am a pragmatist. I am well aware that the present Government will do what they perceive to be right, as long as they have the co-operation of Labour Members. I believe that they are likely to achieve that co-operation. It would seem to be rather stupid and naive of Conservative Members to tell the Leader of the House that we oppose his appointment to the Modernisation Committee, as we know full well that he will be so appointed. Further, it would be infantile, irresponsible and stupid—and a total waste of time—to have a major debate in the Modernisation Committee next Wednesday to oppose the right hon. Gentleman's appointment as Chairman of that Committee.
I merely look to the right hon. Gentleman and hope that he recognises my commitment to the House. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I am a Back Bencher. Apart from a short period he has been a Back Bencher for the overwhelming majority of his time in the House. I have been a Back Bencher for all the time that I have spent in the House; and for one reason—
Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South): We know why.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for that compliment. As I have said once or twice in this place, I was born with a mouth and I have been prepared to use it according to my judgment and experience.
Although I have mixed views about a member of the Cabinet actually chairing the Committee, I am realistic enough to know that, in a few minutes' time, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill will be appointed to the Committee and that next Wednesday he will be appointed its Chairman. I want to work closely with him and his party colleagues on the Committee in the best interests of—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Another PPS for you, John—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever the merits of the possible Chair of the Committee, we should concentrate on its membership at this point.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker; but in order for the right hon. Member for
Hamilton, North and Bellshill to be Chairman, he has to be appointed to the Committee, which is what the debate is about. I look to the right hon. Gentleman to give the same commitment to the Modernisation Committee as his predecessor, and I hope that he will be prepared to work with the other members of the Committee in the best interests of the House.
- That Mr Robin Cook and Lorna Fitzsimons be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Dr John Reid and Caroline Flint be added.
PETITION
Community Pharmacies
6.11 pm
Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South): I wish to present a petition signed by about 8,000 of my constituents. It states that the proposals by the Office of Fair Trading for unrestricted opening of pharmacies for the dispensation of national health service prescriptions will have a serious and detrimental effect on those pharmacies and the communities they serve. The petition requests the House of Commons to urge the Government to reject those very damaging proposals at the earliest possible opportunity.
- That the proposals made by the Office of Fair Trading allowing the unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental impact on local pharmacies and their continued services to local communities.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject the proposals made by the OFT for unrestricted opening of pharmacies.
And the Petitioners remain etc.
Rail Links (Dover and the CTRL)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
6.13 pm
Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise Dover's concerns about its rail links and about the channel tunnel rail link.
Way back in 1987, during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Bill, I had the privilege of working as parliamentary agent on behalf of more than 10,000 people in east Kent who provided evidence or appeared before the Special Select Committee of both Houses to seek a fair deal for Dover and east Kent.
I represented seafarers, whose jobs were threatened; port workers, whose futures were put in doubt; and other employees and employers in east Kent who were concerned about the impact of the channel tunnel on the local economy. Most of our deliberations were concerned with the provision of a high-speed rail link through Kent, which was the subject of later legislation. Even in 1987, however, we recognised that the building of a new railway would impose additional disruption, and would have an impact on local communities and give rise to years of blight.
In the Select Committee, people from east Kent argued that the tunnel would destroy jobs on the ferries and that it would have other detrimental effects—and it did. However, we were assured that in the long run we would benefit from faster and better rail services, and that places such as Dover would enjoy vastly improved domestic services to the capital by virtue of the channel tunnel rail link.
Sixteen years on, we are still seeking assurances that the channel tunnel rail link will properly benefit east Kent and, in particular, we are still pressing for the new high-speed rail link to reach Dover.
During this once-in-a-lifetime chance to link one of the world's busiest capitals to the world's busiest ferry port, we are urging the Strategic Rail Authority and the Minister to ensure that Dover gets a fair deal.
The special needs of Dover, Thanet and east Kent are now well known to Ministers and the House. Gone are the days when every constituency in Kent was represented by a Conservative MP and the scandal of east Kent's large patches of poverty and social deprivation were all swept under the carpet. Great strides have been made in recent years to improve the local economy. In my constituency, unemployment has been halved since 1997, and youth unemployment has been slashed by 93 per cent., but my hon. Friend the Minister will know that my part of Kent still has some of the most deprived wards in the country.
The Government's regeneration funding, coupled with help for the former east Kent coalfields, has certainly made a positive difference and improved our prospects. Objective 2 and assisted area status have helped us to gain inward investment, but east Kent still looks forward to the time when it can rely on itself to pay its own way and to regenerate its own economy. It can do that only when its transport infrastructure is improved and when the present run-down, slow and inadequate rail services are radically improved.
Before being elected to the House, I chaired Dover district council's economic development committee, and whenever we managed to entice a would-be inward investor to reach out from London and visit our council, the word would go out to check how the visitor intended to travel and, if there were any risk of his coming by train, we would ensure that a car was provided. Those who did come by rail had to put up with slow, stop-and-start, slam-door trains, which were cold and dirty and took nearly two hours to rattle the 70 miles from London to Dover. Needless to say, those angry entrepreneurs had made their investment decisions long before they trundled into Priory station in Dover.
Dover suffers from being a peripheral area. We are at the very edge of the United Kingdom, but we are at the very heart of the north-west economic corridor. We have become the gateway to mainland Europe, not just for Britain, but for the wider world. We are only 20 miles from Calais and 70 miles from London, but people can still cross the channel by ferry faster than they can travel to London in a train.
The east Kent triangle strategic partnership, which is made up of local authorities and major employers in east Kent, such as the port of Dover and Pfizer, strongly supports the need to upgrade the transport links to east Kent and has responded positively to the SRA's consultation exercise. Those in the triangle strongly support the SRA's option 6, which would allow channel tunnel rail link trains to reach Canterbury, West on the north Kent line and Folkestone on the east Kent route. They also support the principle of extending those services to Ramsgate and Dover respectively.
I am also pleased to support option 6, with extension to Ramsgate, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—who cannot be with us now—has shown himself more than capable of pressing that case, so I want to concentrate my remarks on the need to provide links to Dover, which Dover district council and its hard-working leader, Pete Wells, have been promoting so effectively.
The SRA has been remitted by the Government
- "to achieve train services that will create a strong intercontinental link to increase trade and tourism in Britain."
- "contributing to the efficient economy and to support sustainable economic growth in appropriate locations".
- "to promote the integration of all forms of transport and land-use planning leading to a better, more efficient transport system."
Our poor rail links are matched in part by our inadequate road connections. For more than 25 years, we have suffered the infamous truncated A2 dual
carriageway, one of the main routes to the port, which still stops nine miles short of Dover and narrows to a single track before reaching Dover's eastern docks. Will the Government really contemplate commissioning a high-speed rail service that also stops miles short of Dover? The question therefore is: why does the SRA not see the sense of running the CTRL to its natural terminus at Dover? In fairness, I think that it does: in my talks with it, it has been very helpful; it has made me aware of the cost constraints, of its wider responsibilities and of the huge expense of building the new high-speed trains. I believe, however, that it is close to accepting the economic and social case for running those trains to Dover, and close to being persuaded that there is a business case.We have made the SRA aware of the potential for passenger growth that would be provided by a direct high-speed rail service between London and Dover. For instance, Dover harbour board estimates that the 250,000 passengers per annum who currently use the train to connect to the ferries will nearly double by 2007, and that a further 160,000 cruise liner passengers a year would be expected to switch to rail were the service up to par. At present, the cruise liner companies bring their passengers to Dover from London using luxury coaches or fleets of executive cars—anything to avoid subjecting their customers to the negative experience of travelling with Connex South East in Kent.
What therefore stands in the way of linking the CTRL to Dover? The main barrier to tapping into all these economic opportunities—I accept that it is a problem—is the space constraint at Shakespeare tunnel between Folkestone and Dover. It has long been known that that single-bore tunnel is not wide enough to allow safe evacuation of passengers through the normal side doors. The conventional trains now in service meet the safety requirements by having front and rear doors but, as yet, we have not persuaded the SRA to fit emergency front and rear doors to the new fleet of high-speed tunnel trains. I welcome its confirmation that it is actively investigating the feasibility of fitting front and rear doors, and that it is looking at other remedies such as partially widening the tunnel or providing an emergency shunting vehicle to aid evacuation in cases of emergency.
The remit of extending the new high-speed rail units to domestic destinations in Kent includes the provisos that the system should be flexible, adaptable and future- proof, and that it should be sustainable for at least 40 years. Clearly, a high-speed train unit that cannot safely go through the Shakespeare tunnel, and a high-speed rail service that stops six miles short of Dover, is neither flexible, adaptable nor future-proof, and would seem to fall short of all the Government's aspirations for providing a fast, efficient, integrated transport system.
To conclude, my plea to the Minister tonight is that he demonstrate to the SRA that the political will exists to find a remedy to the restrictions of Shakespeare tunnel and that he will not allow a relatively small engineering problem to stand in the way of large strategic gains for Dover, all of east Kent, and, indeed, all of the United Kingdom.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |