On this last day before the Christmas recess, may I wish you, Madam Speaker, a very happy Christmas? Some of us believe that you do an excellent job in the Chair.

The Leader of the House may recall that, during the Prime Minister's speech on the Loyal Address, I raised the issue of the amount of money and effort that Labour and Liberal Democrat local authorities were expending to put forward arguments, when votes are taken at schools, against their opting for grant-maintained status. The Prime Minister said that the matter would be looked at. What steps are being taken? In the county of Devon, there is constant proof that the local education authority and county council employees are making a considerable effort to urge and support those who wish to resist grant-maintained status. Examples in Devon of the great success that grant-maintained status has brought about include Colyton grammar school. It is not right that ratepayers' money should be used for the political purpose of resisting grant-maintained status.

Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment whether the Government have considered the possibility that, where sums have been expended for that purpose, they should be surcharged against the councillors for unnecessary expenditure that does not form part of a local authority's normal expenditure? The matter is of considerable importance. I need not spend more time on it, and I should be pleased if, in the period before the House reassembles, it could be looked at much more fully.

In the spirit of Christmas, may I too wish you, Madam Speaker, a happy Christmas and new year? If next year I sometimes feel that I am not catching your eye, I shall bear in mind the fact that I wished you a happy Christmas at the appropriate time.

I wish only briefly to mention what occurred last night: once again, the Government were defeated and humiliated. It is important, however, and it would be useful, to have a proper statement arising from that defeat. So far, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has merely made an inadequate statement on a point of order. The Government must now work on the assumption that the political arithmetic is going against them. They would be wrong to work on any other assumption, as their majority is likely to go down next year, and they will be faced time and again with the same difficulties as last night.

How much better it would be if the Government resolved that matter by going to the country and letting it decide, rather than trying to linger on until the last possible moment, despite all the setbacks and humiliations. It is time for a general election, and I hope that it will come sooner rather than later.

How many times were the Labour Government of the day, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, defeated in Parliament between October 1974 and 1979? Did they not soldier on as long as they could?

Conservative Members have often told us that that was unfortunate and undignified, and that the Labour Government should have gone to the country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has said the same. Regardless of what happened in the 1970s, surely it is time for Conservative Members to practise what they preach, given that we have been lectured so often by them. Let the country decide sooner rather than later.

I must raise two other matters before we go into the recess. Not long ago, I applied under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on cold weather payments, especially for those pensioners on income support. It was not successful.

It is extremely unfortunate that, despite the extremely harsh weather that we have been experiencing, so few pensioners who would have been eligible to receive what is only a modest sum—£8.50 a week—have received it. I checked the latest information with the Library. Out of 55 weather stations—I do not know how the country is divided up and why there are 55, but so be it—the trigger mechanism worked in only seven. What conditions are necessary for it to work?

The Leader of the House will understand all this, because he was involved with the appropriate Department for some time. The weather has to be freezing for seven days and seven nights continuously. If it is intensely cold or freezing for three, four or even six days, as it has been in many parts of the country, but there is then a change in the weather, the payments are not made. It is a daft scheme, which deprives so many elderly people on the lowest incomes of extra money to keep themselves warm.

In the main, it is rare for pensioners to get into fuel debt—that applies as much to other Members' constituents as to mine—simply because they are frightened of receiving a bill that they cannot afford to pay. They do not keep the heating on as much as they should, or as we would do because we have the income to do so. They might heat only one room, or go to the library or some other public place during the day to save fuel. It is a terrible situation, and that is why I applied for an emergency debate and why I have kept on about the subject.

As the Leader of the House is aware, I am sure, percentage-wise more elderly people die here in the winter months than in many other European countries. One can only come to the conclusion that, because elderly people on low incomes suffer so much misery and hardship, they put their health at risk—they risk hypothermia and related conditions. The emergency payment should be made to all those who would otherwise be eligible. As I said, out of the 55 weather stations scattered around the country, the mechanism has worked in only seven.

Finally, the Leader of the House may be aware that, following the terrible tragedy of the headmaster who was knifed to death, I asked at the first opportunity in the House—on the following Monday—whether it would be possible for the Government urgently to consider legislation to toughen up on knives. They have responded in some ways. I am not merely criticising; I am pleased with that response.

A private Member's Bill—the Offensive Weapons Bill—has been tabled, and there is no reason why I, along with my hon. Friends, should not support it. Obviously, we will have to wait until Second Reading and the Committee stage, and I hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading. The Bill and the response of the House are the attitude that the general public want.

In a dignified and courageous statement last weekend, Mrs. Lawrence, the widow of the head who was murdered, gave an interview to the Press Association. She spoke of her family's deep sorrow, for her children and herself. She also said that she would like it to be more difficult for knives to be purchased.

At business questions last Thursday, I asked whether, rather than the Home Secretary taking a confrontational attitude to the Opposition over this—although the Leader of the House denied that that was the case—the Home Secretary could meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) before the Second Reading of the Offensive Weapons Bill to find out whether any agreement could be reached on the purchase of knives.

I understand all the counter-arguments—what would happen about bread knives, and would one stop people buying knives for legitimate sporting purposes?—but we should be aware that there is a knife culture among youths in certain areas. It is almost as if a knife is a part of their dress when they go out. Fortunately for the safety of the general public, the knives are not usually used, but their use for criminal purposes is increasing.

At about the time that Philip Lawrence was knifed to death, a security officer at an Asda store in Newcastle was also knifed to death when he courageously went to the aid of two female employees. We should not forget him, either. Those two men exhibited the highest courage. They could have saved their own lives by acting differently; instead, they lost their lives.

The Government must understand that, yes, we want to tighten up on sentencing, for which there is a strong case—hence my support for the private Member's Bill—but that there is scope to make it more difficult for knives to be purchased, despite all the difficulties. Fortunately, unlike the United States, we have pretty tough restrictions on guns. In some respects, I would like them to be tougher. Fortunately, one cannot simply purchase a gun.

I hope that the Home Secretary, with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, will be able to find out whether there is scope for tightening up the sale of knives, and will take legal advice and so forth, so that one will not be able to buy the most ghastly knives in shops in central London or by mail order. The weapons might not be intended for criminal purposes, but what guarantee do we have of that? I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on my views to the appropriate Ministers.

May I join colleagues on both sides of the House in wishing you a happy Christmas, Madam Speaker. I hope that you will take my word for it that no analogy is intended in the fact that I intend to begin by mentioning the royal yacht. I often likened my wife, when I married her, to a sleek racing craft. After 26 years of marriage, I now say that the cargo has shifted a bit.

It has in my hon. Friend's case, too.

Yes, it has in my case, too, as my hon. Friend so rightly points out.

I have a slight sense of déjà vu, since we began the year with a campaign for the royal yacht—or I certainly did—and I seem to be ending the year with one. Having said our prayers for the royal family, what more appropriate way is there to start?

The BBC is running a programme on that magnificent vessel tonight. As she is a riveted ship, I do not understand why we cannot keep her in commission for many years to come. She is quite capable of being repaired and kept in good order and, although in her present state she requires a large crew, the manning levels could be reduced with modern machinery.

I hope that I may yet win that important battle because, as has been said many times, the yacht is very much part of the fabric of our nation. There could be no finer sight than the Heads of State embarking on that magnificent vessel to celebrate the D-day landings. One Head of State, the President of the United States, chose not to travel on the royal yacht, and went aboard a grey-funnel ship of his own nation—it did not look the part. If Heads of State of the major countries throughout Europe voted with their feet and stayed aboard the royal yacht, that would be a good way of influencing the Government.

I should like to keep with the slightly salty flavour, and mention last night's fishing debate. I was rather surprised to receive a letter from the Liberal Democrat-controlled council of the Isle of Wight asking me to vote against the measure. In the right-hand corner of the council's notepaper, there is a silhouette of the Isle of Wight, over which it says that it is a "region of Europe".

The Liberal Democrat Members seem to have gone off to Christmas rather early. I wonder if some of the Opposition Members who are present could search behind the Benches to see if there are any Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber—it seems rather bereft of their presence. Perhaps Liberal Democrat Members have decided that the United Kingdom has become a region of Europe; they are so Brussels-barmy that they have probably gone there for the day.

It is extraordinary for the Liberal Democrat-controlled council on the Isle of Wight to tell everyone that the Isle of Wight is a region of Europe. It even went to the extent of minting its own coins, on the back of which it said that the Isle of Wight ecu would be introduced in 1996. That same council says that we should vote against the fisheries policy of the EC.

I went to the trouble of telephoning the chairman and secretary of the Isle of Wight fishermen's association, who also approached me about last night's debate. I asked them what had changed since I last voted on the issue in the House. Fisheries policy is, of course, a contentious matter, particularly for Members of Parliament who represent fishermen who fish in the western approaches. The chairman and secretary could not tell me what had changed in terms of the Isle of Wight, but they suggested that I contact a fisherman named Ray Hayles.

I telephoned Ray Hayles, and asked him what had happened. He said, "It is the general conservation view—we are concerned that there are more Frenchmen and Spaniards, and fewer fish." I told him that I understood that, but that the Government had reduced the number of fishermen who can come from the rest of the EC into British waters. I said that I wanted to know what had changed in relation to the Isle of Wight.

I took the trouble to ask staff in the House of Commons Library what had changed, and they more or less confirmed that nothing had changed. There is an incredible perception that hon. Members were voting to determine a policy, but the vote was taken on the motion to "take note", and had little influence. The vote was not, as many fishermen thought, on a motion to take Britain out of the EC fisheries policy. The vote did not make one ha'p'orth of difference to the fishermen of the Isle of Wight. As all hon. Members have long since realised, reality and fiction in the House are certainly not bedfellows.

One of my favourite subjects, which I first raised when I entered the House in 1987, involves light dues. The Government have done remarkably well in abolishing the dock labour scheme. There has been a fantastic increase in the amount of trade to our ports, which were privatised under the trust port legislation. The one remaining problem is the considerable cost of light dues when bringing a ship to Great Britain.

Even more pernicious, all constituents pay tax to the Treasury, but my constituents in some parts of the Solent also have to pay a tax to Trinity house for travelling backwards and forwards to the Isle of Wight. The position is anomalous: in the eastern Solent, the buoyage is controlled by the Queen's habourmaster—the Royal Navy—and no light dues are charged, but in the western Solent, Trinity house controls the buoyage, and has to charge light dues on the ferries coming to and from the Isle of Wight. Just outside Cowes harbour are two buoys which do not contribute to safe navigation in and out of the harbour, but their presence means that the red-funnel service to Southampton from Cowes has to pay light dues for the buoys, as do all day-trip vessel operators, both on the island and travelling from the mainland.

There was a recent inquiry in the western Solent, because Associated British Ports wanted to take over that section of the Solent, the channel up from the Needles, which is unregulated—there is no authority for it, which is extraordinary. ABP proposed that it should become the navigation authority, and I thought that, with some qualifications, that would be an ideal way of easing Trinity house out of the Solent.

Associated British Ports has offered to take over the buoyage in the Solent from Trinity house, but the proposal has been rejected for a variety of reasons. I find it difficult to understand why my constituents should be placed at a disadvantage compared with those of the rest of the United Kingdom by having to pay an additional form of taxation just because they live on an offshore island.

We have also encountered problems over the years with dredging for aggregate in the Solent. I am pleased that both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Crown estate have given me a guarantee that in future there will be no renewal or extension of licences for the dredging of aggregate in the Solent.

It is remarkable that one of the objections to ABP's proposal, which included maintenance dredging in the Needles channel, was that it should not be allowed to dredge. That objection came from the Isle of Wight council—the same council that refused to support me against New Forest district council dredging the, shingle bank to replenish Hurst spit. That is an extraordinary example of environmental double standards, which seem to infect not only Isle of Wight council policy but some of its councillors.

There have been difficulties in Solent waters in recent years due to sewage pollution. One oyster bed has been closed in the western Solent this year. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kindly agreed that we should meet the fish experts at Weymouth, which we shall do in the new year. When we have done that, we shall go to see the Environment Minister to discuss the problem of sewer outfalls. Southern Water tried hard to get the Solent waters redesignated; I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Government resisted that proposal.

All the requirements of the urban waste water directives will have to be met. That will involve building a new sewerage plant with a long sea outfall at Sandown. Local fishermen and the tourist board are rightly concerned that there should be a cast-iron guarantee that the effluent will not wash up on the beaches to create the problems that have occurred in other parts of the country. It is proposed that the sewerage plant and outfall system should serve the whole of the Isle of Wight—or at least a great proportion of it. I hope that the Lord President will take note of my remarks, as it is a tortuous problem; we have suffered for many years from the inadequate Victorian sewerage system around the coast of the United Kingdom.

As a result of water privatisation and EC directives, there has been a massive investment and clean-up. We won some blue flags for our beaches on the Isle of Wight. However, one problem is that the scheme for Ventnor has been delayed; Ventnor has a serious problem, because it has an inadequate system. It was to have a new system, but that has been scrapped because of the redesignation of the seas off the north side of the island, the Solent. I hope that ministerial pressure will be exerted on Southern Water to ensure that it gets on with the scheme, and to guarantee that it is effective.

I now turn to the subject of education on the Isle of Wight and our standard spending assessments. The capping limits for the Isle of Wight council have been raised, and in March a whole series of bids will come in for various functions of the new unitary council. However, a substantial body of opinion on the island is encouraged to believe that the Government have not properly funded education on the Isle of Wight. I take great exception to that, because the settlement we have just had is more than adequate, taken with the savings made by having a unitary authority that we expect from—indeed, were promised by—the Isle of Wight council. The settlement should be more than adequate to ensure that we have a quality education service on the island. We understand that it is more expensive than most other education authorities, because it is a three-tier system. Given the small size of our population, education will always be more expensive per capita.

I support, and align myself with, the chairman of the education committee on the council. The council should spend all the money available on education in the island, which is mostly good. Obviously, education is our future, not just for the Isle of Wight, but for our nation, too.

On the island, we have had a serious problem with the British Medical Association. It has, on three occasions, run some serious scare stories about the island's health service. The most recent was last week—the suggestion in a television programme that St. Mary's hospital was to become a cottage hospital, and that the single-handed specialties were to be removed from the Isle of Wight.

The story suggested that, in future, we would have to travel to the mainland to have those surgical operations that have hitherto been available on the Isle of Wight. In fact, those operations have been available on the Isle of Wight only since the funding improvements and the general expansion of the health service by the Government.

On Sunday, with my wife, the chairman of the Isle of Wight council and the high sheriff, I toured St. Mary's hospital. We started at 9 am, and my wife and I finished our tour just after 6 pm. I was told by the chief executive that there was absolutely no truth in the programme on the BBC that emanated from the BMA. The chairman has written to the single-handed specialists in ophthalmology, oral surgery, and ear, nose and throat to say that the suggestion in the programme is not true, and that he is awaiting the results of an advertisement for a cardiac consultant on the island.

We have had problems, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know, with community care and its funding on the Isle of Wight. I was shocked to be told on my rounds on Sunday that there was a proposal for the closure of the Totland ward. That ward is operated by the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS trust, and a little lady there told me how much it meant to her for respite care.

The Leader of the House is ideally qualified, because of his previous ministerial offices, to understand the great conundrums one faces in trying to deliver community care. For example, Margaret Condon, who was a patient in that ward and is a great supporter of mine, was worried that she would no longer receive assistance from that facility. The hospital is trying to contract out the service to private nursing homes, because of the numbers involved and the staff ratios. The next person I spoke to, whom I had never met before, was Alfred Chapman, who is 91 and blind. His wife is blind as well. He told me that he thought the time was coming when he and his wife might need a little assistance at home from social services.

Those two examples show the diversity in people's needs and requirements of the health service. That chap of 91, blind and living with his wife, has hitherto been completely independent at home, and has come in for respite care because he had a problem with his chest and was feeling down. On the other hand, Margaret Condon, who is considerably younger, relies on that type of care all the time.

We will have a unitary authority, and we have some sense of realism about the delivery of community care on the island. We also expect the decision—which I have long campaigned for—on the amalgamation of the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare NHS trust with St. Mary's Hospital (Isle of Wight) trust. We are told that that will save nearly £500,000 per annum.

I hope that the council will not continue to insist on running an entirely separate organisation, but will join in one mutual organisation with shared services, so that we can ensure the greatest efficiency and the most money for patient care. In the meantime, I hope that the Leader of the House will support the staff and the rest of us to ensure that Totland ward does not close.

There is concern about the target formula from the Department of Health—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the House suffering a selfish abuse of the procedure? The understanding is that these Adjournment debates are limited to three hours and that each of us should show some kind of restraint. Parading constituency problem after constituency problem is not a proper use of a Wednesday morning.

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member who is speaking is entirely in order, in relation to the subject before us.

Tedious repetition.

Order. There has been no repetition. If there had been, I would have intervened.

Well, it has been very tedious.

Order. I would have intervened had there been repetition. I imagine that the hon. Member who is speaking will notice how many other hon. Members wish to contribute.

If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had had the courtesy to intervene, I would have given way to him. I hope that he would have accepted—because he is reasonable—that I have a cogent explanation for my speech this morning.

Since I came to the House in 1987, I have never made an entire speech about the Isle of Wight. I am the only Member who represents an entire county in its own right, and we have a number of problems. Not least, I am the only Member who represents more than 100,000 constituents, and this is the first occasion on which I have endeavoured, and am endeavouring, to make a comprehensive speech about the Isle of Wight. I am sorry if Opposition Members find it tedious: I am sure that my constituents do not. I can tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow that I do not intend to have a similar marathon in the future, having made this speech.

However, I have a number of other, separate points that I intend to raise this morning.

Tut-tut.

The tut-tutting from Opposition Members would be more reasonable if they understood the considerable pressure and work load that having more than 100,000 constituents brings. I shall continue. Sadly, this week, a policeman was stabbed on the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to say that his injuries will not cause him to be off work for long, but I am sure that we wish him a speedy recovery. I am pleased that the House is addressing the subject of the carrying of knives in public places. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has already—and rightly—raised that subject this morning.

There is considerable frustration on the Isle of Wight that we cannot get our local authority to take seriously the installation of closed circuit television cameras in public places. I am not suggesting that the island needs to be blanketed by them—fortunately, we have a considerably lower crime rate than the rest of the United Kingdom—but many people on the island believe, and I am sure it is a universal opinion, that CCTV can make a major contribution to reducing crime, particularly petty vandalism in public places.

I am pleased that the Chancellor made provision for that in the Budget. We do not seem to be making much progress on its installation on the island, although I believe that the council, in conjunction with the police, will submit a bid for CCTV shortly.

We have the highest level of seasonal unemployment in the United Kingdom, which is another reason why I feel fully justified in taking up the time of the House this morning. In the past few days, however, we have benefited from the single regeneration budget.

There is a feeling on the island that glad tidings are about to come to us from the Government in the form of the assistance that they will give us. The business link has been established, and it is beginning to extend its tentacles throughout the island to draw together all the agencies of Government. I am sure that it will grapple with the intractable problem of seasonal unemployment, from which the island has suffered for so many years.

I still wonder why the Department for Education and Employment, the Isle of Wight council or business link has not conducted a survey of the number of people who commute to work from the mainland to the Isle of Wight. My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates of all Conservative constituencies, and it seems extraordinary that a contingent of people commute to the Isle of Wight to work. We should endeavour to address that mismatch.

This week, the island's citizens advice bureau received the largest grant of those given throughout the south of England—more than £300,000—to assist its work on the island. I am particularly pleased about that, because our CAB has had problems in obtaining funding locally in the past. I am sure that that funding will ensure that it gives an efficient service to all my constituents throughout the island, and not just those in Newport, as it did hitherto.

The Isle of Wight's roads are notorious. When one drives off the car ferry, there is, for some reason, a large sign, erected courtesy of the council, which says, "Island roads are different", and indeed they are. They are rather corrugated. One former Transport Minister, who knows the Isle of Wight extremely well, said that the island's geological formation is a road maker's nightmare.

We have some serious traffic problems on the island. We have conducted some experiments, such as removing double yellow lines, to try to improve the lot of local traders who have suffered from the arrival of large supermarkets on the island, which have absorbed a considerable amount of the traders' business.

Like other hon. Members, I am concerned that my council continues to pursue traders who operate on the pavements. Given that the Isle of Wight is a holiday resort, I think such trading is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, and adds to the holiday atmosphere. I am sad that that trading practice is frowned upon where the pavement is wide enough to allow it.

The island recently received a substantial grant from lottery funds for its housing advice centre. I backed that bid, and I am pleased that the Department of the Environment has also given the centre money. My right hon. Friend might like to know that the Liberal Democrats opposed the allocation of that money, on the ground that the centre was also receiving income from Shelter.

That centre has made a considerable improvement to the advice that young people and those threatened with homelessness receive. It has also assisted them in finding accommodation. The centre is greatly trusted by all parties on the island, because of the excellence and professionalism of its advice. It has made great strides, and its professional, specialist advice has helped to lessen the work load of the CAB. I should like my right hon. Friend to pass on my thanks to Ministers at the Department of the Environment for their support in the early stages of establishing the centre.

The Isle of Wight has a number of bids in for the millennium fund. My own proposal, which I hope will be accepted, is for the establishment of a national civil war museum on the island. As everyone in the House is aware, at the other end of the building lies the arrest warrant for King Charles I, which was served at Carisbrooke on the Isle of Wight.

Although it is understandable that no nation would wish to celebrate a civil war, sufficient years have now passed, and we should try to draw together all the artefacts and historic memorabilia from around the country in one national museum. People could visit it to learn about the incarceration of King Charles 1, and how that affected the island. In due course, I hope that that museum could become a national centre of excellence, as well as an archive of that remarkable period of history.

I do not want to antagonise the hon. Gentleman, because I hope that he will support my private Member's Bill. I have already spoken, so I have no personal motive in asking the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that this is a time-restricted debate. He has spoken for half an hour, and if he continues to speak he will deprive many other hon. Members, Conservative and Labour, of the opportunity of speaking. I have no motive in saying that, other than that I think he is being extremely unfair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that criticism in the spirit in which it is intended.

It is Christmas, so I will. I also think that it is extremely unfair that Opposition Members get the same allowance for office costs as I do, when, after the next election I shall have almost half as many constituents again as the rest of them. I make no complaint about that, however, because it is a great privilege to be here. I must repeat that I have never been selfish since I was elected in 1987, and I am coming to a conclusion, but I have just two more points to make. Under the Budget, the relief on capital gains tax was not extended. The yield from CGT has been considerably reduced because of the roll-over reinvestment available on unquoted shares. To combat that low yield, I suggest to the Treasury that, if the relief was extended to allow for investment in housing associations and external loans for investment in private housing schemes for renting—a Budget proposal—the yield from CGT would not alter, but it would be targeted at the private housing market and give it the oomph it needs.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Evening Standard has recently run an effective campaign about the problems of long leaseholds and landlords who take advantage of them. We have a lot of Victorian property on the island which has been converted into multiple-occupation housing and sold on long leases, so we have had problems with leases in the past. I was interested to note that the Evening Standard mentioned companies that were in a similar location to some that had caused me and my constituents considerable problems.

The cry for more legislation goes up yet again. If the Department of the Environment were to join with the Department of Trade and Industry, their combined weight against a company which is sailing very close to the wind would prove a very effective force. They could apply pressure to the directors of the company, and perhaps make public the organisation's activities. That would be much more effective than again opting for primary legislation, and it might well prove a more speedy solution.

That brings me, finally, to the question of deregulation. As hon. Members know, I am the Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, and it is a matter of personal regret to me that we shall not be able to dance on new year's eve—which falls on a Sunday this year—as dancing is prohibited in this country on a Sunday. I had hoped that the deregulation order would be passed to allow people to celebrate the new year, but the other place decided that that was an inappropriate use of a deregulation order. Therefore, I know that this year our constituents throughout the United Kingdom will sit at home cuddling a cup of Bovril instead of dancing. That is very sad.

In the new year, we should examine deregulation proposals and consider giving local authorities the discretion to exercise some of the powers they used to have. In my keenness to vote in the House for a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight and the Local Government Commission, I was surprised to learn that we were also voting for the commission to consider the issue of parish and town councils. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the old days, if a proportion of the local population—I think that the figure was two thirds, but I may be wrong—declared that they required a parish council, the local authority would put that proposal to the Secretary of State, who could then allow it.

I am now told that that is impossible without a complete review by the Local Government Commission. That band of wandering minstrels rumbles around the country while local communities, that would desperately like to have a parish council are no longer afforded that option. A deregulation order could be brought before the House to deal with that situation, and return that power to local authorities.

If that cannot be done, my noble Friend Lord Mottistone in the other place is in the early stages of producing a Bill with the Government that will allow East Cowes to have a parish council. The Local Government Commission envisaged in its report that the Isle of Wight should have a unitary authority. In his capacity as Lord President of the Council, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that all Government Departments give full force to my noble Friend's proposals, if that is the only alternative open to the people of the Isle of Wight.

Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have wished Madam Speaker a pleasant Christmas and a happy new year, so I think that it is appropriate to extend the same sentiments to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the many people who serve Members of Parliament in the House. I refer especially to those in the Refreshment Department and in the tearooms, who provide a valuable service and who are never fully appreciated for the work they do.

St. George's hospital, Tooting—one of the major hospitals in south London—is located in my parliamentary constituency. It serves Wandsworth, Merton and Sutton, and no doubt people from other areas attend the hospital for health care and other services. I do not question that it is an excellent hospital which offers good health services and employs a very dedicated team of doctors, nurses and other health service workers.

However, like so many other hospitals in London and in other parts of the country, St. George's faces more and more difficulties in its service provision. I am sure that all hon. Members have read in today's press, and have heard on this morning's radio broadcasts, reports about the problems that many hospitals in the United Kingdom have providing accident and emergency care. That is certainly the case at St. George's hospital.

I visited the St. George's accident and emergency department some months ago at the request of senior doctors, and both doctors and nurses told me about the problems they face. The hospital does not have the provision to meet patients' needs. While St. George's has difficulty finding beds for patients, whole hospital wards are closed. The difficulty of providing home care services in adjoining boroughs for patients who are about to be discharged adds to those problems. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved since my visit—and, in the case of elderly people and those who are most at risk, it has worsened.

John Millard, the consultant physician at St. George's hospital, sent me a letter shortly after my visit to the hospital. In the letter, dated 21 September, he says:

"Many thanks for your letter of 15th September. I am so glad that you were able to come to St. George's and see both junior and senior staff who have to work in the system. I will certainly pass your message on to them."

My message was to express my appreciation to the staff for the services they provide in the community. Mr. Millard continued:

"I hope your discussions with both Lambeth and Merton are fruitful. Getting elderly patients home, when they no longer need high-tech medical care is a major problem".

I think that that comment clearly outlines the problems at the hospital. However, it is only one aspect of the difficulties that it faces. Week after week, the Prime Minister and other Ministers cite figures to justify what they believe is happening in the national health service. I do not doubt that money is being spent, but doctors, nurses, local people and Members of Parliament with hospitals in their constituencies know that many Government changes have created a two-tier health service. I put it to the House that London has suffered far more than other parts of the country. Year after year, successive Secretaries of State have told us that there are too many hospital beds in London. In recent years, 2,500 beds have been closed in the Greater London area.

Hospital admissions in the Wandsworth area are much higher than the national average. The number of admissions for elderly people in Wandsworth is in the highest 10 per cent. of the national figures. Against the background that I have outlined, we have seen funding taken from St. George's and allocated to areas far away from London, which is having a disastrous effect on our health services. That is not only my view, but is the view of senior doctors and administrators at the hospital. The Wandsworth health authority loses money every year. Since 1993, our budget has been cut by some 24 per cent. The continuing reduction in expenditure cannot continue without the serious effects that we are now experiencing. I have discussed the matter with the chief executive, senior administrative officers, doctors and nurses at the hospital. They all accept that this is happening, and it will continue, as will their complaints to me and to the Secretary of State for Health.

Regrettably, a major hospital in south London that provides hospital care for in-patients and out-patients has closed wards, and nurses are about to be made redundant. We all know that it will lead to the cancellation of operations and cuts in services for out-patients. Senior doctors rightly complain to me, and we should give them credit for voicing their complaints about those matters, which ultimately will affect patients.

I sought this morning's short debate because the hospital is still set to have its funding cut in the coming years. Where is the sense in following such a policy, when it is roundly and repeatedly condemned by the very people who are seeking to run the services in that hospital?

My speech is not about the national health service in the United Kingdom; it relates solely to one hospital—a very important hospital that meets the needs not only of my constituents but of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Local people share the deep concern of the hospital administrators, the chief executive and senior doctors at the hospital that there is no sense whatsoever in closing hospital wards that are needed and making loyal members of staff redundant because, sadly, insufficient funding is available to that hospital.

It is no good for the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House, as they do week after week, to say how marvellous everything is in the national health service. One only wishes that was true. Sadly, it is not. It is now time for change. That is what people really want, not some time in the future, but with an urgency to face the need to change policies which are having such a regrettable, indeed disastrous, effect on the standards of that hospital—especially for the people in that part of south London who go there for their health provision.

I welcome these Adjournment debates, as they give us the opportunity to raise matters of specific concern to our constituents. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Lord President would address two points when he replies to the debate, as my constituents are interested in them.

The first concerns the incident involving the chief inspector of prisons at HM prison Holloway. There has been much talk about the conditions in that prison, and I would be interested to know what my right hon. Friend has to say on the subject. I hope that he will bear it in mind that my constituents have scant sympathy for those serving prison sentences, as they have clearly offended against society. While we should ensure that our prisons are sanitary, they should be spartan, and not have conditions which are not available in our youth clubs and elsewhere.

Secondly, I should like to raise the vexed subject of Mr. Peter Davis, the national lottery regulator. As I understand it, he used free flights in the United States which otherwise would have been paid for by the taxpayer. He has a reputation as a dry accountant but a person of the utmost probity. Having been in business, I know that there is always pressure to save on one's expenses. If that is the context, it is to be commended, but I should like some assurance from my right hon. Friend on those points.

The debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who was concerned about the pernicious campaign against parents when they are asked to decide whether they wish to back the decision of the board of governors for a school to become grant-maintained. It struck a strong chord with me, as I represent a Kent constituency.

Only yesterday, Gravesend received a magnificent Christmas present. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced her approval of the application for grant-maintained status from the Gravesend grammar school for girls. We have been dismayed at the delay in that approval, as the parents voted for that change by an overwhelming majority last July.

Eight out of nine secondary schools, and three of the primary schools, in Gravesham are now grant-maintained. The process has been a remarkable success. St. George's Church of England comprehensive school, the first school in the borough to become grant-maintained, has achieved wonderful results by redeploying 100 per cent. of the resources, balancing the staff against other spending, and getting value for money.

I commend to the House the comments of the chairman of the governors, the Rev. Joe King, who is a well-known Labour party supporter. He makes it clear that he values the school's new freedom and has considerable scorn for so-called specialist support supply by Kent county council.

Meopham school in my constituency, a rural secondary school that was under threat of closure from the county council, is now absolutely thriving. Those involved have used great imagination to make the school the core of the community campus in the village.

Only a few years ago, Southfields school in my constituency had the unenviable status of being bottom of the league of schools in Kent. It is now moving steadily away from the bottom as the school rallies round, using all the discretions available to grant-maintained schools. It is all most encouraging. The grant-maintained schools system is so successful that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Opposition spokesman on education, is already well on the way to implying that it was all their own idea in the first place. We know that the Leader of the Opposition scorns his council schools in Islington, and has taken his young son right across London to a leading grant-maintained school. It is all positive. We want parental choice, and other schools to follow the great achievements of schools in Gravesham and in so many boroughs throughout the country.

We should consider the action taken by the Labour party in respect of grant-maintained schools. There have been 12 ballots in Gravesham, and in every one the parents voted by an overwhelming majority in favour. However, they have done so against a background of rumours, falsehoods and the spending of £100,000 of council tax payers' money by Labour-Liberal-controlled Kent county council. It is really dreadful.

There has been a great deal of messing about by the county council. There have been land grabs and disputes over land on campuses and equipment. There have even been problems over the delivery of pay slips and P45s to the teachers in the schools concerned.

The Labour party fought and won the county council elections two years ago on the basis that the borough of Gravesham needed more nursery schools. To date, not a single new one has been provided. When there was one such proposal from a grant-maintained school—the Holy Trinity Church of England school—the Labour-controlled county council opposed it. Having said that Gravesham needed more nursery units, it voted down one such proposal because it came from a grant-maintained school. Thanks only to the action of my hon. Friend the Minister, we now have a new unit serving youngsters in Gravesend.

Gravesend grammar school for girls is now going ahead with grant-maintained status. The delays have been caused by the bogus objections of Kent county council, under the inspiration of the Labour party. One of the objections was that the governors arrived at their decision in only 15 minutes. On investigation, we found that they had held two lengthy meetings to discuss the whole matter, and had deferred the second meeting only so as to allow the KCC area education officer time to confirm the exact details of his offer of an admissions policy for the north-west Kent area.

Another bogus objection which was particularly patronising and insulting to my Sikh constituents was the allegation contained in the following KCC letter:

"The ballot documentation supplied by the Electoral Reform Society was made available in the English language only. In an area with a substantial Asian languages speaking population, this will have had the effect of disenfranchising a proportion of the electorate on racial lines."

There is only one large minority in Gravesham—Sikhs from the Punjab, who speak the Punjabi language.

Most of the Sikh community are now second or third generation. The school itself already offers parents a translation service for general education matters, and not one parent has ever felt the need to take it up. Furthermore, not a single student in the school, of Sikh or any other origin, needs English language support on the ground that English is their second language. So this was yet another pernicious example of playing the race card.

Another bogus objection came in the form of the suggestion that the public meeting for parents was not balanced. That cannot be true; the co-chairman of the education committee, a Labour county councillor, attended and spoke at the meeting. Is it thought that parents are so stupid that they cannot hear out a Labour councillor and then make their own minds up?

This was all, of course, a fatuous waste of time, but it delayed the process for five months and endangered the 1996 intake of girls to the school, at a time when parents were facing anxious decisions about the future of their daughters' education. The fact is that the Labour party issues soundbites of approval for GM status, but the reality is quite different.

Our schools in Gravesham have to cope not just with this sort of trench warfare but with other ridiculous nonsense to do with school funding. Last year, Kent county council was given another 2.1 per cent. funding in terms of actual cash, but passed on only a 1 per cent. increase to the budgets of schools—after considerable pressure had been exerted. That resulted in a shortfall of £3.4 million across the county. Weeks later, it was found that—possibly owing to mismanagement—the council had underspent for the previous year by £19 million.

The solution that was obvious to parents and anyone else of sound mind was to put £3.4 million from the £19 million into topping up schools' budgets to the amount that they should have had in the first place. Such a proposal was made by Conservative county councillors, but it was voted down by the Lib-Lab pact, whose members wanted to keep up the party political pressure on parents. Speaking as the parent of three youngsters in state schools in Kent, I do not believe that our youngsters' education should be played around with for party political purposes.

This year, the Government increased the funding for Kent county council by 4.38 per cent.—significantly more than inflation. As education is the top Government priority, the percentage applicable to education is even higher. But what is the prospect of that money getting through to the schools?

A meeting has just been held by Kent county council with the chairmen of governors of schools. At the end of the meeting, just as the Conservative leader of the county council opposition left the hall, up jumped the co-chairman of education—this time a Liberal Democrat—to tell the assembled chairmen of governors that there had been no increase whatever in Government funding. That is game playing of the most inaccurate and damaging kind. What on earth will these councillors do with the budget if their starting point is so inaccurate?

I should like to have spoken on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, but blocking tactics were used to stop me being the last speaker in the debate, organised by the Labour Whip, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Hence my sympathy in respect of certain recent comments is somewhat thin. Nevertheless, I want to put on record two points that I was unable to make at the time.

I have some personal experience of immigration racketeers. They charge large fees for smuggling immigrants into this country. In Kent, we see immigrants who cannot speak English wandering around the lay-bys of our motorways, where they have been dumped by these miserable intermediaries. Some immigrants have even been suffocated while hidden in the backs of lorries. It is vital that the problem be dealt with soon. There are also unscrupulous immigration brokers. Time and again, immigrants have been to my surgery to tell me that they have been led on by so-called advisers who charge huge fees. They take their clients through the mass of regulations, and then try to exploit our generous asylum system.

Worst of all are the immigration marriage brokers. They ruin the lives of young constituents of mine. I give the House the example of a 20-year-old British-born Sikh girl who used to work in a large office. One afternoon, she went to her boss and asked for half an hour off. He asked her why she wanted to go out. She replied that she wished to get married, but would be back in half an hour. The boss wondered what was going on. She said that there was a register office just across the road. So she went off and got married, but she did not much like the look of the man who was to be her husband—and then realised that he was an illegal immigrant.

The girl came to see me: could I do something to prevent her having to go through the religious ceremony? It seems that a marriage broker had arranged the marriage with her father and brother; she alleged that money had changed hands for that purpose. She had only one way out—to flee her home and the borough in which she had been brought up. She had to pack her personal belongings in her suitcase, which she had brought from the office, and flee to London that very weekend—a disgraceful episode.

The marriage broker concerned also happened to be the chief executive of the Gravesend Commission for Racial Equality, formerly the Gravesham community relations council, which had a valuable and long-standing record of service to the borough. The Gravesend CRE branch suddenly closed down. The secretary came to me at my surgery to tell me that she had been dumped with no redundancy money and to ask me whether I could help. I approached the chairman of the defunct CRE, a Labour councillor, who told me that there was nothing he could say. I then approached the one-time honorary president of the CRE, another Labour councillor, who was equally unable to help.

It is odd that this marriage broker and former chief executive of the defunct CRE, a Mr. Gurdev Singh Talwar, was also a Labour councillor at the time. For some months now, the Labour party has been throwing allegations of sleaze and secrecy across this Chamber. It is time that the Opposition cleaned up their act and came up with an explanation of what went on in the cases to which I have referred. I also hope that the press will turn to some investigative journalism to shed light on these scandals.

Another aspect of the Asylum and Immigration Bill—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about a Bill which is already before the House. There will be other occasions when he can talk about it, of course. Meanwhile, he can talk freely about the problems of Gravesham, but not about the Bill.

My Sikh constituents, largely because of their origins in the Punjab, depend for their livelihoods on labouring jobs—they work in construction, on roads, in market gardening and so on. For two or three years, they have been telling me that the pay for their jobs is being undercut by people who will work for very much less. They specifically asked, "What are the Government going to do about it? We know that these people are illegal immigrants and bogus asylum applicants." In fact, the Government are acting, and I support them.

Denton, in my constituency, received a good Christmas present from the Government. It has received nearly £2 million from the challenge fund to support project Denton. Moneys from the single regeneration budget will go to a very old part of the borough. It is an area of small streets, in which a new factory has developed. The factory provides 250 jobs in an area of high unemployment. Comma Oil mixes and bottles lubricants and other fluids for the vehicle industry.

Heavy goods vehicles have rumbled through the old streets of Denton to reach the factory, to the distraction of residents. The clear solution was to build a new highway on the other side of Denton. We have never been able to implement that solution, because the local highway authority, Kent county council, has been resolute in not including it in its programme, despite the fact that the Labour co-chair of the relevant county council committee is the local ward councillor.

As a result of wonderful co-operation between the public and private sectors, a deal has been put together that includes a new road. It also includes training and youth opportunities, as well as anti-crime improvements. The deal is a considerable success. It will ensure that the factory will remain in the area. It was going to go elsewhere. I can now disclose that it would have gone to Huntingdon. I could not admit that earlier, because, if the proposed move to that particular constituency had been known about, there might have been a temptation not to approve our grant! Comma Oil is to stay on the site, and there will be an additional 50 jobs. The opening up of other land will create another 250 jobs.

The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) stirred a memory for me. He talked about parishes and a local population, virtually without exception, wanting to create a parish council. That is the position at the village of Vigo in my constituency, which is currently part of the parish of Meopham.

All the residents—I know of no exceptions—wish to establish a parish council in their own right. The mechanism is to go through the Local Government Commission for England. Unfortunately, given the vast amount of work that the commission is undertaking, it will not get on with the job. I hope that the matter can be re-examined, with a view to finding a simplified way of allowing populations, if they wish, to establish a parish council. They should be able to do so.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) should not be suspicious on every occasion about people who nip out from work to get married. Mrs. Banks and I did precisely that. We married and went back to work the same afternoon. She is not, as far as I am aware, an illegal immigrant.

There seems to be a practice—it has almost become a tradition—of Members presenting the House with compilations of their favourite speeches, or perhaps of speeches that they did not make, during these Adjournment debates. I suggest that letters to Ministers or local press releases might be equally appropriate ways of drawing attention to the points they want to raise.

I do not wish to be churlish, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I join all those who have wished you a happy Christmas. Long may I catch your eye, Sir. You might have a happy Christmas, but after the vote last night, I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister will be able to enjoy his Christmas. I am sure that he would like to wake up on Christmas morning to find all the heads of his Euro-sceptics in his Christmas stocking. He would then, of course, find that his parliamentary majority had disappeared. He is not, of course, able to rely on some Conservative Members these days. I endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who said that the country desperately needs a general election. I suspect that parliamentary arithmetic will force one sooner rather than later on the Prime Minister.

I was not going to be here this morning. I had intended to travel to Zurich for a Council of Europe meeting. Unfortunately, being a practised wally, I left my passport at home. When I reached Heathrow, I found that the British immigration service was more than happy to let me leave the country. I do not know whether that tells me something of which I should be aware. British Midland was superb in arranging things. Unfortunately, those at the Zurich end refused to let me into Switzerland. Who would wish to impersonate a British Member of Parliament these days? That would be outrageous. This episode takes up the theme of illegal immigrants that the hon. Member for Gravesham introduced.

I would not fancy the chances of young Master Tell if I were to shoot at the apple on his head this morning. He would end up looking rather like King Harold.

The debate gives me the chance to raise the case of Mr. Mark Votier. He is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who is a good friend of mine. She knows that I am raising Mr. Votier's case, and supports me in doing so.

Mr. Votier is a freelance journalist. He was commissioned to film a Japanese whaling expedition in the Antarctic. He was so shocked by what he saw aboard Japanese whaling ships that he released the footage of his film to journalists throughout the world. We saw examples of that footage in newspapers such as the Independent and The Guardian earlier this month. As a result of releasing his film, he is being sued by the Japanese Government's Institute of Cetacean Research for £60,000-worth of damages. Total costs will be another £200,000.

The Japanese are killing minke whales in the southern ocean sanctuary. This year, they will kill no fewer than 440 whales. Mr. Votier went to the area as someone who was not passionately committed to the preservation of whales. If he had been, he probably would not have wanted to go to the area to see what was going on. There are, of course, brave people who are supportive of the anti-whaling movement who are prepared to expose themselves to both dangers and horrors. However, Mr. Votier saw things that appalled him.

Mr. Votier found that 50 per cent. of the minke whales that were caught were only wounded by the harpoon, not killed. The Japanese butchers then put into the minke whale a lance through which they passed an electric force. The force is not sufficient to kill the whale instantly. On average, they took at least eight minutes to die. On one occasion, Mr. Votier saw a minke whale thrashing around for 23 minutes waiting to die while the Japanese put an electric shock through it. That is a whale dying in agony. The Japanese have no right to do this.

We should make a strong protest to the Japanese authorities. The British representatives at the International Whaling Commission met in May. They attempted to use examples of Mr. Votier's film to demonstrate that so-called scientific whaling is butchery by the Japanese. The Japanese vetoed the attempt. They said that the film that the British representatives wished to use—it was shot by Mr. Votier—was illegally obtained.

When Mr. Votier was commissioned, he was told that he must exclude from his film all unsightly tasks—in other words, the sort of things that tell us the truth about what the Japanese are doing to whales in the southern ocean sanctuary. He was told that his film would have to be submitted to the Japanese authorities for censorship.

A spokesman for the agriculture and fisheries division of the Japanese embassy in London denied that whaling was unscientific. He said:

"We need to gather scientific data on the age, sex and population of the minke whales in the antarctic."

He claimed that 400 whales had to be slaughtered to satisfy statistical best practice.

The United States, using the Pelly amendment, has censured Japan for its so-called scientific whaling, and Japan is now 90 days away from having sanctions imposed on it. Incidentally, the sanctions will not affect electrical equipment or cars exported by the Japanese—I wish that they did, because that might concentrate their warped little minds. The sanctions will relate only to fishing, but they are still worth imposing, which is why I am asking the British Government to do something.

I have tabled an early-day motion that has been signed by 113 hon. Members, asking for the strongest protest to be made to the Japanese authorities. The case in Tokyo, which involves a British citizen, has been adjourned until 23 January. It is likely to be postponed again for procedural reasons until 20 February, when a decision is expected.

I ask the Lord President to pass on, through the Foreign Office, our strong feeling that the case against Mr. Votier should be dropped. He should not be prosecuted; he should be thanked by world opinion, although not, clearly, by the Japanese. I hope that the Lord President will bear in mind my remarks, and ensure that the necessary pressure, in defence of a British citizen who was doing his job and informing world opinion, is put on the Japanese authorities.

Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, I wish to raise three issues. However, before doing so, I put it on record that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on some matters. I share his views on animal welfare and agree that an international railway station should be located at Stratford, but we disagree about football—he supports Chelsea and I support West Ham.

I was reflecting on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who mentioned the education of the Leader of the Opposition's child. I was flattered when the leader of the Labour party and his deputy chose to mention me in their speeches to the Labour party conference, but my family is still smarting from the Labour party's delightful comments about me and the education of my own son. The attack was led by a former Labour Member of Parliament, supported by my defeated Labour rival in the general election for whom no handkerchief is big enough to blub into. However, I do not intend to go into detail about the conduct of those people. I shall wait until the leader of the Labour party and his deputy are present and then put a number of questions to them.

The first matter that I want to raise relates to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau. A number of my constituents are worried about the speed and effectiveness of the bureau. I have often passed on complaints which then meet inordinate delays. I know that the Law Society's new president believes in self-regulation, but I doubt whether self-regulation is in the best interests of our constituents. I am also concerned that the majority of people who sit on the bureau are solicitors. That seems bizarre; I should have thought it was fairer to have a majority of lay people.

Secondly, I wish to draw attention to the Raoul Wallenberg appeal. Some years ago, I introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule procedure for him to be declared an honorary British citizen. The Bill was not successful so I introduced another, the object of which was to set aside a piece of land so that a suitable monument could be erected to honour him, even though there is still some dispute as to whether he is alive or dead.

I am delighted to be able to say that great progress has been made by the appeal committee under the chairmanship of Sir Sigmund Sternberg, aided by Mr. Lionel Altman and others. Next year, or certainly by the spring of 1997, a monument will be erected to Raoul Wallenberg.

As I am sure the House knows, Raoul Wallenberg was a brave Swedish diplomat who, in 1944, risked everything and saved the lives of more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. He designed the Schutzpass, a fake document that effectively entitled the bearer to the same protection as that afforded by a Swedish passport, which the Nazis accepted. He did a very brave thing, and I am delighted that a splendid bronze sculpture, to be done by Philip Jackson, is to be erected in the crescent of Great Cumberland place in front of the Marble Arch synagogue. However, in order for that to happen, £100,000 has to be raised, to pay not only for the sculpture but for its maintenance.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will, through the best endeavours of his office, try to secure from the Department of National Heritage a substantial contribution on the nation's behalf to that magnificent sculpture, which is to be unveiled in the not too distant future.

Finally, I deal with local government. Yesterday, the Local Government Commission announced its findings on unitary status for Basildon, Thurrock and other parts of the country. For my part, I have always believed in unitary authorities and very much regret that we have not set about introducing more across the country. I very much want Basildon to be given unitary status. When we examined the matter in the early days, I should have preferred large unitary authorities. It might surprise the House to learn that, although Basildon was very happy to be joined up with other areas, some parts of Essex were reluctant to join up with Basildon. I very much hope that next year we shall make the firm announcement that Basildon has—perhaps as part of a larger authority—been given unitary status.

In Essex, there is a phenomenon of Liberal and Labour party pacts. The Labour and Liberal parties share a bed on Essex county council, Basildon district council and Southend district council. When the phenomenon first developed, both parties were anxious to see the back of the Conservative party but, since the two socialist parties joined together, they have had something of a falling out.

It is the old story: Opposition parties are adept at articulating problems but they have difficulty in coming up with solutions. When they get power and find that they have difficult decisions to make, there is a falling out.

On Essex county council, Labour and the Liberals have made a complete mess of social services, and care in the community has not been conducted as it would have been under Conservative control. Matters are in such a shambles that the Government have announced an inquiry. On education, Labour and the Liberals have done all that they possibly can to undermine the position of grant-maintained schools in the county. We recently received a letter from the leader of the Liberals on Essex county council, asking the 16 Essex Conservative Members of Parliament to vote against the 1p off income tax announced in the Budget. The Labour party bravely abstained because it worries about votes and about whether such action might make it unpopular and reduce its so-called lead in the opinion polls, but the Liberal Democrats bravely and courageously encouraged us not to go ahead with the penny off income tax.

On extra funding for education, I very much hope that it will be better understood that the Government have put in, as a result of the Budget, a substantial amount of extra money, which will go to education specifically to reduce the size of classrooms. It would be dishonest of any Labour or Liberal politician in Essex to try to deny what the Government have achieved.

What is going on in local government in Basildon at the moment is extraordinary. One is given the impression that the three parties in Basildon are sharing power and agree on everything, but the reality is that Labour and the Liberals vote against the Conservative party on everything. For three years, the Conservatives controlled Basildon district council and sensibly managed our finances so that people's council taxes would not be put up in the future. It has not taken the Labour and Liberal parties long to start wasting that money. Once again, they are setting up area offices. The most extraordinary thing is their handling of local government officers. Everyone in the House believes that local government officers should do their job professionally and not be signed up to any political party. The last time that we had a Labour council in Basildon, the chief executive disappeared, for whatever reason, with no details given of how his removal from office was conducted or, indeed, how much he was given to leave the local authority's employment.

I now find that since the Labour and Liberal parties have controlled Basildon district council, the chief executive, yet again, has disappeared, and his deputy has taken his job—no word of explanation or details about the money that local residents in Basildon were asked to fork out to make that happen. It gets worse. I learnt this week that the previous excellent director of housing in Basildon is no longer employed by the local authority. Instead, someone who I understood was sacked by the local authority has got his job.

I am not prepared to see those matters swept under the carpet. Given that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats believe in open disclosure, I trust that Members of Parliament will have a word with the local councillors in Basildon to ensure that local residents know precisely what is going on in relation to the conduct of local officers in Basildon.

The country and the world will be celebrating Christmas on 25 December, but I wonder whether there is any profound realisation of what Christmas day is all about. Does it demonstrate that the country and the world believe in God? I hope that the real meaning of Christmas will be better understood by the whole of the population, because if the true spirit of Christmas is understood and followed—not just for one day in the year but for 365—the country and the world will truly he a better place.

Before the House adjourns, I seek clarification on two matters, notice of which I gave to the Lord President's officials, I thought prudently, at a quarter to 10: first, the expulsion from this country of Khalifa Barzelya, the head of the Libyan interests section; and, secondly, the veracity or otherwise of the very remarkable presentation in The Guardian of Saturday 16 December by Maggie O'Kane, which relates to the Gulf war. The article forms the foundation of a programme that is to be shown an Channel 4 on 3 January. It raises very important questions of truthfulness or otherwise in relation to the Gulf war.

First, on Khalifa Barzelya: because of Lockerbie, I have come to know him over the past three years relatively well. I really am astonished that he should be considered to warrant expulsion from this country. In the light of the dreadful murder of a Libyan business man, it is the opinion of Scotland yard that Mr. Barzelya was in no way related to that matter.

I must remind the Lord President that, at Heathrow tomorrow evening, a group of relatives will meet in the airport chapel for the seventh anniversary—they meet every year on 21 December—of that dreadful night when the Pan Am Clipper "Maid of the Seas" came down. They are as determined as ever to get to the truth. It is their view, as they know him, too, that Mr. Barzelya has been greatly helpful. My estimate is that he has tried to improve relations between Britain and Libya, and to help the Libyan students that we still have—although not as many as previously—in this country. I ask, therefore, why he is being expelled. When I ask him, he says that he really has no idea; he thinks that it may be because he has been developing associations with a number of academics and, indeed, politicians. I have to say that the politicians are "undesirables" like the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on the Conservative Benches and myself on the Opposition Benches.

If such contact is really creating trouble for the Foreign Office or the security services, it is outrageous that no explanation has been given. Therefore, I make a suggestion to the Lord President. We have a statutory committee on security. Could Mr. Barzelya's case be referred to it? I know better than to ask that I should be given some explanation from the security services, but that presumably is why we set up the committee, which is a non-House of Commons body, as I understand it, under the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).

I would be quite satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "My Committee and I have seen the evidence and, on the basis of the evidence, the Government are quite justified," but, really, one does want some kind of objective assessment, because let us be clear about how damaging it is. Of course, tit-for-tat, David Hawkes has been told to get out of Tripoli. The Government should remember that there are some 5,000 of our citizens earning their bread and butter in one way or another, mostly in the Cyrenaican desert and mostly for firms such as Brown and Root. They want some kind of presence in the British interests section of the Italian embassy in Tripoli.

I could go on and on about the damage to British industry and to one of our traditional markets. The managing director of Babcock made it very clear that he would not have had to pay off some 400 skilled people in Renfrew the other day had we still had the traditional Libyan order.

No doubt I will be contradicted if I am wrong, but I fear that this has something to do with the on-going Lockerbie business, and the feeling that certain elements in the Government want an easy excuse not to hold a trial in The Hague with Scottish rules of evidence and under a Scottish judge. After seven years, any Government who wanted the truth would surely compromise to some extent, and go along with what has been offered. I have to say that I believe that the last thing that the British Government want is any kind of trial that would bring these matters to a head.

The second issue that I wish to raise relates to the article that appeared in The Guardian last Saturday. I want to ask three questions. First, are the satellite photographs from the Soyuz Karta genuine? If not, what happened in connection with the massive build-up on the Kuwaiti border about which we had been told? When I did my national service with the Royal Scots Greys, now the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, we were taught to read aerial photographs. I am no great expert, but it appears that the aerial photographs that were so crucial during the Gulf war do not show the build-up that served as the justification for that war.

Secondly, let me refer to specific statements that were made in The Guardian about dead babies. According to the article,

"Dead babies are nothing new. During the German invasion of Belgium in the first world war, stories circulated in Britain and France of Belgian babies being butchered by German soldiers wielding bayonets. There's always a dead baby story. The story of how Iraqi troops, in the first days of the invasion, went into al Adan hospital, tore the sick babies from incubators and left them on the cold floor to die, was graphically told to Congress in November, 1990—before a crucial vote—by Niyirah al Sabah who, unknown to her audience, was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. In her tearful testimony, she said she had witnessed the Iraqi troops' brutality when she worked as a volunteer in the maternity ward.

About 100 yards from the front of the al Adan hospital in Kuwait City is a white two-storey building which houses about 50 nurses. Nurse Myra Ancog-Cooke is a Filipino nurse. Six months after the war ended, I found her still working in the hospital. She poured tea and told her story—a story which for me sowed the first seed of suspicion about the tales and half-truths that marked the build-up to the Gulf war. A staunch Catholic, she explained that it was her duty and God's will that she stayed to care for the sick. She was assigned to the children's ward and took it in turns with the other Filipino nurse who stayed behind, Freida Contrais-Naig, to sleep in the incubator room with the babies.

'I remember someone called and said, "Look at CNN, they are talking about us." We watched and it was strange seeing that girl telling them about the Iraqis taking the babies out of the incubators. I said to Freida, "That's funny, we've never seen her. She never worked here." We didn't think very much about it really. We were more excited seeing our hospital on the television.' Later, Amnesty, who had also been duped by the testimony, admitted they'd got it wrong. Andrew Whitley of Middle East Watch described it as a fabrication, but it took months for the truth to come out.

Meanwhile, President Bush mentioned the incubator babies in five speeches and seven senators referred to them in speeches backing a pro-war resolution. Subsequently, Hill and Knowlton were unabashed that the media worldwide, the UN Security Council and the US Congress had been deceived by a 15-year-old girl who had been 'trained' by a public relations firm. Lauri Fitz-Pegado of Hill and Knowlton, who prepared six witnesses who corroborated the incubator story to Congress, told John Macarthur, author of The Second Front, a book on censorship in the Gulf War: 'Come on John, who gives a shit whether there were six babies or two. I believed her.' The invading Iraqi army did rape, kill and torture in Kuwait, and that's what the world wanted to read.

Highly exaggerated reports of thousands of deaths were accepted uncritically, as the PR firm, using Kuwaiti contacts inside the country, smuggled 24 videotapes to hungry and unquestioning mass media. The tone was set, and the tide was running in the Kuwaiti Government/Hill and Knowlton direction—war."

That raises serious issues in relation to the role of public relations firms in general, and Hill and Knowlton in particular. In considering our role in the Gulf war, the British House of Commons is entitled to ask the Government whether what was published last Saturday, and what I understand is to be shown on 3 January, is true or false. I have given the Minister's officials some warning, and I hope that the Minister will give at least a preliminary reaction in his winding-up speech.

Let me ask my final question. According to the logs, the British, French and Soviets also detected chemicals flowing down wind from the Iraqis' chemical and biological stations, which had been bombed. This is not the occasion for me to go into detail about the problems of some of our constituents who may have suffered from the effects of chemical weapons; let me simply ask the Government whether they propose to give a considered response once they have seen the film, which goes to the heart of the truthfulness of the statement that has been made by Maggie O'Kane.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak. I shall break with tradition—not, I hasten to add, with the protocol or the great traditions of this place. I intend to speak briefly about a subject about which I have not spoken in the House before, although it has been pretty close to my heart for many years: sport.

If the House will indulge me for a few minutes, I shall set the scene. I feel some concern—in fact, "concern" is probably too strong a word; I feel some nervousness—about one aspect of sport that has been highlighted in the past year or so. Governing bodies in sport—and, probably, the House at some stage—may wish to consider it, especially in view of the forthcoming passage of the Broadcasting Bill. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that sport is important—it matters.

In 1989, just before I left the Sports Council as its vice-chairman to throw my hat into the political arena—obviously, I did not crave job security at that stage—I commissioned some work on its behalf by the Henley research centre, which identified two or three key statistics on the way in which sport was valued in this country. In the late 1980s, about 22 million people identified themselves as being involved in sport regularly at one level or another. I have no reason to believe that that number has decreased; in key sectors, it will have increased. That is getting on for roughly half the population. It is probably one of the most popular activities that could be identified in such statistical terms.

In economic terms, by the end of the 1980s, sport was about the fourth largest employer. It employed more than the car and petrochemical industries and the agricultural sector put together. It accounted for about £3.5 billion-worth of high street retail sales, which had it alongside, and in some areas outstripping, electrical goods and even, for a time, cassettes and other audio equipment.

That is a long-winded way of saying that sport matters and that people recognise that it matters. There is no hon. Member sitting in the House today who does not have sports clubs in his or her constituency. They are either closely attached to such clubs or recognise their work, whether they be in rural areas or in inner cities.

One of the key arguments that has always raged within sport, sports administrations and sports governing bodies—it raged especially during my time at the Sports Council—involved sports funding and whether the funds that were available, through the private or public sectors, should be distributed towards the excellence end of sport or towards its participation end, remembering that the Sports Council's royal charter specifically gave it the remit to increase participation in sport. We recognise that those were and remain key arguments.

Throughout a number of years in sports administration and certainly as a competitor, my belief has been that, in relation to participation and excellence and funding, we cannot have one without the other. We recognise the old pyramid argument that one needs a firm base through which the Daley Thompsons, Steve Ovetts, Steve Crams and Paul Gascoignes emerge. One also needs, however, specifically to target sport at the excellence end, either through our national sports centres or possibly through the development of an academy of sport—a whole range of issues exists here.

We recognise that some countries have targeted specifically and very well. The Swedes produced Bjorn Borg and Stefan Edberg; the Germans, in exactly the same way, identified what I suppose one could describe as a niche market, through which the Steffi Grafs and Boris Beckers emerged. There is, therefore, a gentle and fairly subtle balance in all that.

The landscape of sport in relation to its public face has changed dramatically, even since the time I was serving at the Sports Council. I wish that I had had available to me in the late 1980s the sort of budget that is now available through the mechanisms of the national lottery and the Sports Council grant. At that time, basically, the public face of British sport was run on about £40 million a year, which was significantly less than the Arts Council grant, but I do not wish to revisit old griefs.

"Raising the Game" is probably one of the best pieces of political thought that has gone into sport since 1945 and is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree should be welcomed. In the development of sport, whether with regard to competition in school, the maintenance of school sport, linking clubs—where there is now probably more coaching expertise than in schools—with schools and ensuring that funding is appropriate and resources are available as and where they are genuinely needed, "Raising the Game" was probably the single most important contribution that this place and Government have made for many years.

The general populace's access to top-class sport concerns me. We are not all likely to turn up at Wimbledon and lie in our sleeping bags for three days to obtain tickets for Centre court. We recognise that the majority of people who watch sport at the highest level do so through their television sets. I wish that more people turned up and actively supported sport, but that genie is not likely ever to be put back in the bottle. We must recognise that the main vehicle for sports promotion is television.

One of my concerns is that, if we are to maintain participation levels and excellence, we must maintain people's maximum access to sport on television. That difficult issue must be confronted, given the nature of some of the contracts that are being drawn up between sports governing bodies and television, the balance of terrestrial television and satellite television in particular, and the advent of pay-per-view, which, for the majority of sports fans in the United States of America, remains the most important access that they have to television sport.

Back in the 1950s, we produced a protected list of events. It was ostensibly to ensure that there was no likelihood that one of the key events—the World cup, the Olympic games, the English FA cup final or Scottish FA cup final—was protected from a monopoly broadcast. The protected list was put together to ensure that the majority of people had access to sport at that level. Satellite television is now in the arena, looking to and making hard progress towards the sort of exclusive deal that is likely to cause hon. Members concern in relation to access to some of the more traditional sports.

I was interested to be a bystander—a seated bystander, I hasten to add—at an Adjournment debate some months ago when hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke passionately about the deal that was being struck between Sky television, the Murdoch organisation and rugby league. Your colleague, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Sir G. Lofthouse), is well known for his strong rugby league background. One of my more cherished memories of that debate is of the hon. Gentleman trying to hold back his anger about developments in a sport that hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially those with northern constituencies, recognise as causing concern.

I hope that we do not deprive the average sports fan of access to top-class television sport. In a few months' time, the Broadcasting Bill is due to be considered by the House and, when it does, perhaps we can visit that issue. Perhaps we could debate it in terms not of strong or tight prescriptive measures on governing bodies or television, but of how they might develop negotiations with satellite or terrestrial television authorities.

One issue that we could visit relates to highlights packages. In a few months the World cricket cup competition will be held in India and Pakistan. The agreement between Sky television and the world cricketing bodies was for exclusive coverage, but the original discussions agreed that the highlights package would be available to the BBC. I understand that that package will not be available and that means that, for large parts of the year, a generation of young cricket fans will have limited television access to their sport. Of course, domestic test matches will remain on the protected list, but we shall have to make sure that highlights packages for overseas tours are available.

In their negotiations with satellite companies, the governing bodies should carefully consider entering into contractual agreements that preclude terrestrial television showing such packages. It is in the interests of the governing bodies to have the maximum number of people wanting to take up their sport, whether that is badminton, cricket, football or track and field. Numbers are their life blood and, if they are limited, the ultimate price to be paid is that people will turn away from sports to which they do not have ready access on television and will find other sports. I gently suggest to governing bodies that might be negotiating at this moment that, if they are not careful, they may slaughter the goose that lays the golden egg.

Sport is important and it should remain accessible to as many people as possible. It has gained a political status in this place that most of us who were working in the vineyard in the 1980s did not think would come about so quickly. I am grateful for that, but I am still nervous about the other issues.

rose—

Order. There is just under half an hour to the winding-up speeches. Five hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and I ask for short speeches so that all five may take part.

I appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate. This is the season of good will, but on the first Christmas people were too busy with their own interests to care about others, and there was the murder of the innocents. I do not say whether the person who was murdered last evening in my constituency was innocent, but that murder reflects the issue that we must keep before us—there can be a tendency in society to excuse certain events because people might have deserved what happened to them. The House should give a clear signal that lawlessness in any guise is unacceptable in a democratic society. I know that we will sympathise with the widow and children who in this Christmas season have the harrowing experience of such a tragic loss.

Just before the House rose last Christmas I had an Adjournment debate on traffic flows in Belfast. Is the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland serious about dealing with some of the road congestion that remains? One of the blights in my constituency that affects housing and health is the Broadway roundabout for the west link and the Donegall road. Is it the Department's policy not to have flyovers? If it is, it has never been stated publicly. Is the Department concerned about the topography and geology in the area: I understand that there are two underground rivers there? There is also an electrical cable and that causes similar problems. We have constantly been told that the delay in taking action is due to lack of finance. Are there other reasons that the Department is not prepared to reveal?

I should like to speak about the problem of vetting procedures, especially as they affect people from Northern Ireland. One of my constituents went to Edinburgh university and volunteered for the officer training corps and encouraged one of her room mates to join. The room mate was accepted, but because my constituent had a Northern Ireland background she had to be vetted and, despite letters to the Minister about the issue, she has not been cleared.

I understand the need for vetting, but I also understand the deep hurt that is felt by my constituent's father, an Englishman who served in the Royal Navy for 18 years, and by her grandfather, who served in the Royal Ulster Rifles for more than 30 years. They are dismayed that she is so vetted that she cannot take her place with her friends. The same pattern was evident in a London constituency when the granddaughter of a former councillor and high sheriff of Belfast, who never lived there and whose father was an Englishman, was subjected to long vetting procedures simply because of the Northern Ireland connection.

A colleague engaged an aide in his constituency office and sought to get him a pass so that his bona fides were acceptable here. Although that aide had 30 years' service in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, vetting took three months. I am not sure whether it is a matter of job protection or whether some people with cosy jobs, even part-time ones, do not realise the impact of such vetting. Perhaps they do not give the matter the attention that is necessary, although I am convinced that much of the vetting is unnecessary.

I have no intention of delaying the House. I have made my points succinctly but definitely, and I seek clear answers.

I wish Madam Speaker, her three deputies and all the clerks and servants of the House a very peaceful Christmas and a happy new year.

In the short time available I would like to say a few words about Britain's relations with Europe. Britain is a European country, but it is very different from its continental neighbours. It is a maritime country. Our world interests are far-ranging and go back a very long time. Britain is a pragmatic country. Our common law is built on practical decisions made by judges in actual cases throughout the years, step by step—not for us the grand design, the "code Napoleon".

The exchange rate mechanism was a very good example of European grand design that ended in disaster. Instead of trying, as we would have done step by step on a pragmatic basis to build up a system of aligned currencies firmly based in the economies of the countries concerned, the imposition of an artificial structure from above with deadlines and timetables was attempted, and it collapsed under its own weight, as most of us knew that it would. It was rather like fiddling with the oil pressure gauge on a car instead of attending to the engine. Market rates cannot be rigged, as King Canute would have told us if he had still been here. Perhaps it is not insignificant that King Canute was a Dane.

Britain has had to go to the rescue of Europe three times in recent history—in 1815, 1914 and 1939—and, throughout the ages before 1815, Britain's policy has always been to maintain the balance of power in Europe. We have not been pro-French or anti-German. We have not been pro-German or anti-French. We allied with the French if the Germans began to get too powerful, and with the Germans if the French began to get too powerful. It worries me that such a strong Franco-German alliance is developing in Europe and I worry about the future balance of power in Europe. That ought to worry the French, the Germans and all the other Europeans too.

As for external security, it has not been the European Union that has protected us from war since 1945 but NATO, and the involvement of our American allies. Let no one ever lose sight of that or ever think that the Western European Union could take the place of NATO.

We are good Europeans and, as such, it is our duty to advise, to warn, and, if necessary, to say no. A single currency is a matter of enormous political significance. It is being sold to people on the basis that they will not have to pay exchange costs when they change their money. If they think that the banks will not find another way to extract that amount of money from their pockets, they are very naive.

The single currency would prevent us from setting our own interest rates, tax policy, public borrowing policy and exchange rates. Since the economies of Europe would not be able to move in relation to each other by shifting their exchange rates, massive subsidies would be required. It could all end in tears, just like the ERM.

We fought a civil war in this country 350 years ago to place in the hands of the elected representatives of the people the control of the purse strings, and we should not lightly allow that control to slip into the hands of bankers—who have not covered themselves with glory during the past 20 years—and certainly not foreign bankers.

The opt-out that the Prime Minister negotiated for us at Maastricht was one of his greatest achievements. It may well be that if other countries decide to go ahead and form a single currency, we might be better off outside it—no one can tell at this stage. The City of London is used to dealing with all manner of currencies; it would not matter to the City whether we were in or out of a single currency. What matters to the City is the cost of doing business in London—the cost of regulation.

The questions that the Prime Minister put in Madrid were pertinent, and we need answers to them before we can decide whether to take this momentous step. It would be very foolish to rule in or rule out Britain's membership of a single currency at this stage, as the Prime Minister is often urged to do. Although it seems almost inconceivable that we will join a single currency in the foreseeable future, it is a constitutional principle in this country that no Parliament can bind its successors. Therefore, even if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wished to rule out Britain's membership of a single currency within the lifetime of the next Parliament, he could not do so.

I am concerned, too, about the activities of the European Court of Justice. It proceeds by virtue of the civil law tradition, not the step-by-step, pragmatic approach of our common law judges. Continental judges adopt what is called a purposive construction. Put simply, it means that, by basing their judgments on general principles, they can make the treaties mean anything they want them to mean, which is very dangerous. It means that we are forced to comply with rules to which we would never have agreed had they been spelled out in the treaties.

For example, we would never have allowed the European Court to interfere in relations between the Ministry of Defence and serving soldiers, whether male or female. The European Court of Justice must be put on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, and some effective way must be found to clip the wings of these judicial legislators.

I am also concerned about the European Court of Human Rights, an organ not of the European Union but of the Council of Europe. We signed the European convention on human rights just after the second world war to protect the peoples of Europe against gross abuses of human rights perpetrated by fascists and communists. We did not sign that convention to allow foreign judges to interfere in every nook and cranny of our national life, so that we could be told whether we could cane schoolboys in our schools. There are hon. Members on both sides of the argument on caning, but it is a matter for this country to decide. This Parliament is perfectly capable of deciding such matters and it is no business of European judges to tell us whether we can cane our schoolboys.

It is also no business of European judges to tell us whether our courts martial system can continue. It has been the basis of our military discipline and, partly as a result of it, we have some of the finest armed forces in the world. Defence is entirely outside the competence of the European Union and I do not know how it could be argued that the European Court of Justice has any right to interfere in defence matters in relation to pregnant service women or anything else.

There is no such prohibition, however, in relation to the European Court of Human Rights and therefore it is entitled, if it so wishes, to tell us what we can and cannot do in relation to courts martial. I believe that we should make it very clear to the judges of the European Court of Human Rights that Britain will not tolerate interference in defence matters. If the European Court of Human Rights will not restrain itself, we may have to exercise the right conferred on us by article 65 and withdraw from the European convention on human rights altogether. I fear that our own courts are also getting into bad habits. They are being led on by the European courts to make much more use of their powers of judicial review than they ever did before.

Democracy depends on a delicate balance between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. British and European judges must resist the temptation to trespass too far into the field that the people have entrusted to their elected representatives.

I am delighted to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to wish you a merry Christmas. I wish a successful new year to all my colleagues who have remained in the Chamber, although I think that we might define success in different ways.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to return to an issue that I first raised when the House resumed after the summer recess on 15 October. It may be fitting, on the day before we break for Christmas, to highlight it again. It is the tragic and fatal mining accident that occurred on 12 October at Thoresby colliery in Nottinghamshire.

We were promised an inquiry into the accident. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), said in written replies and correspondence with me that an inquiry was under way. I have also been in touch with the director general of the Health and Safety Executive, who has confirmed that an inquiry is taking place. So far we have merely had a press statement, which the Health and Safety Executive released at the end of October, confirming what we already knew: that there was an inrush of gas, oil and water and one man lost his life. We have not yet had a detailed report on the causes of the accident.

It is essential that the men who work in the industry and the wider community know the cause of the accident so that precautions can be taken and best practice can be put into operation.

Rumour and speculation abound in Nottinghamshire about the accident. Some say that it was caused by old oil industry boreholes, while others maintain that the evacuation procedures were not properly followed. Men who work down the colliery persistently complain that, before the accident, there were severe smells—worse than normal—in the pit.

On the day of the accident, R.J. Budge (Mining), which now operates the pit, did not contact all the mining unions. I remind the Leader of the House that Sir Bernard Crossland's inquiry into the Bilsthorpe colliery accident stressed the need for all unions to be involved because pit safety is a matter not just for management but for all those who work at a pit; no one should be denied the knowledge about the cause of an accident.

It is now two months since the accident and we are still waiting for a report. It is essential that we have one, but it is equally vital that a wider look is taken at pit safety. This is the first year in which the deep-mine coal industry in Britain is operating under private ownership and the record for major accidents appears to have deteriorated. It is common knowledge in the mining community that the number of major incidents has increased over the year. I am told that, at the end of October, the number of incidents was 64, compared with 42 in the previous period when the industry was controlled by British Coal. It therefore appears that major incidents have risen by 50 per cent.

When I wrote to the director general of the Health and Safety Executive asking whether the figures were correct, he could not confirm them. That gives rise to serious concerns because the HSE was set up to prevent accidents and promote good practice. It is not satisfactory that it should be unable to come clean about those figures. It clearly has the figures but will not release them. That is bad practice because working in the deep-mine coal industry is still a dangerous activity. I am not exaggerating when I say that it is a matter of life and death. Men's lives depend on examining accidents and propagating the knowledge gained so that precautions can be taken to stop them occurring again.

I hope that the Leader of the House has listened carefully to my complaints and will use his best endeavours to ensure that the report that we have been promised, which is now two months overdue, is soon put into the public domain. Most important, I hope that he will read early-day motion 165, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others, which states that mining records should be kept on a pit-by-pit and company-by-company basis so that we can identify what is going wrong. Those of us associated with the industry know that accidents will occur in pits, but we are determined to ensure that, when a tragedy occurs, we learn from it.

I wish to raise the case of a young constituent of mine, Neil Edwards from Creswell, who has suffered a serious accident. I promised that I would draw it to the House's attention in view of the bizarre circumstances that surround it. It is a story about declining safety standards in industry, fraud by an employer, lack of regulation and a dereliction of duty by the Health and Safety Executive.

Neil Edwards found a job advertised in a jobcentre to work at a sawmill in Clumber park, Worksop. He had been a building worker and had been laid off, so he took the job. The sawmill was owned by a fellow called Philip Gray and was run on land owned by the National Trust. Neil Edwards had been working there only since 9 September 1994 when he suffered a serious injury. All kinds of logs were lying on the ground and he slipped on one. As no proper guards protected employees from the machinery, his hand went into a machine and he was lucky to escape with his life. He was given emergency treatment and extensive surgery at hospital but lost part of his hand and fingers.

Neil Edwards' employer did not even report the serious accident under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. As a result, the Health and Safety Executive was not informed of it and Neil Edwards' mother had to inform the HSE herself. It then examined the accident but did not prosecute, despite the fact that, only a few years previously, another employee, Mr. Ryan, had lost three fingers at the same sawmill.

As Neil's employer had not even paid sickness benefit, Neil Edwards decided to claim compensation from him under common law regulations. His employer told him, "Here's a few quid, kid. Keep your mouth shut," but young Neil refused to take the money. He decided that his employer was acting contrary to the law and took action to try to claim compensation. Despite the fact that wealthy people such as Roger Levitt and the Maxwell brothers were granted legal aid, young Neil Edwards was at first refused it. He would obviously never be able to work in the building industry again so he tried to get a few bob for having lost part of his hand, yet he could not even claim legal aid. I intervened and managed to get legal aid to take up the case.

I attempted to get common law payments. As former miners for a number of years before we came to this House, you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would simply have taken action through the responsible lawyers and, as a result, the National Coal Board or British Coal would have had to foot the bill. In this case, there was no money because the employer had not even taken out compulsory liability insurance. He did not pay sickness benefit, did not have liability insurance, had not guarded the machinery correctly and had broken the law because he did not even report the case to the Health and Safety Executive.

The HSE was informed that liability insurance had not been taken out. It could have fined the employer, Philip Gray, £1,000 per day. Under this tawdry Government, who seem not to care—they are against regulation and all the rest of it—the Health and Safety Executive did nothing. It did not even rap him over the knuckles. It discovered that Mr. Gray had no assets, or said he had not, although he has been running a business, making a profit and doing so for several years. The legal aid lawyers said that they were unable to discover whether the man had assets that they could claim against so that Neil Edwards could get proper compensation.

The battle is still going on. I call on the Leader of the House to get in touch with the appropriate Government Departments, which are those that control or have some connection with the Health and Safety Executive, to ensure that it does its job correctly, to bear in mind cases like this when they talk about fraud by employees on the Department of Social Security, and to ensure that Philip Gray carries out the duties for which he is responsible.

As we all know, the Health and Safety Executive is just another quango. We have just found out that the medical wing is to be cut by 25 per cent., and that 14 senior HSE posts are to go. The story goes on and on. That may be why employers feel confident about taking risks with workers' safety. Not prosecuting criminals gives a green light to other bosses who are contemplating taking such risks. If the Government are so keen on law and order, they should look no further than the bosses whom they protect. Deregulating health and safety law for employers is a sure way of maiming more people like Neil Edwards.

Postscript: the Worksop jobcentre has just put another advertisement in the window to advertise Neil Edwards' job. The employer is carrying on. Neil Edwards has got no benefits. It is time that the Government did something about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a powerful case on behalf of his constituent. If we had had a little more time, we might have heard more details. My hon. Friend was the 13th hon. Member to speak this morning. That demonstrates the failure of this debate, which is part of a series of pre-Adjournment debates. Normally, about 20 hon. Members manage to contribute in the three hours. By and large, it has been a tradition for hon. Members to speak briefly and to raise no more than one or two subjects—that has always been my experience. Unfortunately, two speeches ran to 55 minutes, which has prevented all hon. Members who wished to participate from doing so.

As you realise, Madam Speaker, I am the only hon. Member who has been present throughout the debate and who has been seeking to speak, but has been unable to do so. By taking 55 minutes, the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) have prevented me from speaking on the state of our democracy. It might have been useful if I had been able to make my speech, so that they could respond. Obviously, they do not act within its spirit.

My hon. Friend made the point that I was trying to make, but did so much more clearly. I hope that the Leader of the House will take that on board and that those who organise our business will do so to enable the maximum number of Members to benefit from this brief debate, which occurs only four times a year before a recess.

I cannot refer to all the speeches—I cannot even attempt to answer what amounted to an Adjournment debate about the Isle of Wight. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a powerful case about the difficulties in his constituency and the creation of a two-tier health service. That case has to be answered and is typical of what is happening throughout the country.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred to the difficulties at Holloway prison.

He is not here.

That may be so, but I still intend to raise this point.

The hon. Member for Gravesham made it clear that he had no sympathy for the inmates of Holloway prison. If the reports of the past few days are true and all the problems at Holloway prison were raised with the Minister of State, Home Office in July of this year, the situation at the prison should have come as no surprise when the inspectors walked in. Yesterday, one newspaper reported that a pregnant prisoner at Holloway was shackled to a male officer while undergoing an antenatal examination. Is that report about the situation inside the prison and the overzealousness true? That situation is disgraceful. People have lost their liberty. That is the penalty that we impose on them—we do not impose other penalties. If that report is true, it is unacceptable.

The hon. Member for Gravesham also mentioned—and other hon. Members were planning to do so—the lottery regulator and the astonishing decision taken by the Secretary of State for National Heritage yesterday evening. As a senior Cabinet Minister, will the Leader of the House say whether it is true that senior Cabinet Ministers ganged up on the National Heritage Secretary to keep that discredited regulator in his place, to avoid adverse publicity? Clearly, the man has lost the confidence of those in public affairs, who are concerned with the good name of the lottery. It has been an outstanding success and there is no argument about that, but the fact that he appears to have done nothing to stop Camelot selling the names of winners to junk mail firms adds to disquiet about its regulation. That is unacceptable and I warn the Leader of the House that the problem will not go away by keeping the gentleman in his job just to save some adverse publicity. It will probably rebound on this accident-prone Government early in the new year and it will be their own fault when it does.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made a powerful point about the British citizen who is the subject of the vagaries of Japanese court action over the disclosure of the horrific scenes from Japanese whaling activities. The majority view in the House is that the hypocrisy of the Japanese about whaling is well known. They have always lied about the purpose of experimental whaling. It is well known where the meat ends up. The international community has not taken the matter seriously. I hope that there is no even-handedness or soft-glove treatment on the part of the Government simply because the Secretary of State for Defence is trying to persuade the Japanese to contribute troops to Bosnia. For all we know, it might be, "We'll keep quiet on this, if you help us out on the other."

Come off it.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that. That is how things are done—behind closed doors.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I ask the Leader of the House to deny that that is true and to give a commitment that the British Government will take a strong and positive stand against what the Japanese are doing and the fact that they are penalising a British citizen for making it known.

Several hon. Members mentioned education. In the brief time available, I want to raise a side issue, but one that is important. In the past few weeks, many of my hon. Friends have mentioned the position of the 400 colleges of further education, which serve 2.5 million students. It is becoming clear that the 5,000 governors of those colleges are in a very uncertain position regarding their financial liabilities. I must declare an interest as I was a governor for more than 20 years. We cannot get an answer from the Department for Education and Employment about the liabilities of such governors. They are not in the same position as directors or trustees, but they are the governors of a statutory, set-up authority.

Due to the effects of the Budget, some of those colleges will probably become insolvent in the forthcoming year. There needs to be a clear statement that, in terms of public service—these are unremunerated positions, by the way—those governors will not be placed at a worse risk than trustees and company directors. The Nolan committee is considering that aspect, although it is not considering protection for those 5,000 governors. If governors are put at risk because of the refusal of the Department for Education and Employment to make a clear statement, it will ruin the tradition of voluntary public service in this country. It is no good saying, as the Department for Education and Employment has more or less said, that one governor will have to take a test case to court. That is quite unacceptable. Many hon. Members have spoken about education issues, but that particular aspect deserves detailed examination by the Government early in the new year.

Before the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) was elected to the House, many of us sat in front of our television sets and cheered him on as he ran for this country. The situation has, of course, changed since he entered the House, and today it was interesting to listen to him talk about sport—some of us thought that he might talk about fishing. I regret that you were not in the Chair at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Gentleman, who is a powerful source for such comments, spoke about the possible television tyranny of sport—I use my words, not his—and particularly cable television's shackling of rugby league players.

The House, particularly the Government, should listen to the hon. Gentleman's warning, which has also come from other hon. Members. Access to televised sporting events will be denied to millions of people in this country, which is unacceptable. If the Government want to avoid any defeats over the forthcoming Broadcasting Bill, they had better get the Bill and the policy right. There will be support from both sides of the House to ensure that millions of citizens of this country are not denied access to top sporting events, as that would damage future generations.

There has been unanimity on one aspect of the debate: wishing the occupant of the Chair—Madam Speaker or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a happy Christmas, but no one has seen fit to wish the Leader of the House a happy Christmas. If I were to seek to respond fully to everything that has been raised with me today, I would still be here at Christmas. I do not think that even my worst opponents in the House would wish that upon me.

All our Christmases have been brightened by the Swiss immigration authorities, to whom we owe the presence of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who made his usual vigorous remarks. I doubt whether the Japanese Government would welcome his presence here today as much as we do, but he has certainly improved the quality of our debate. I am tempted to express the hope that the Swiss immigration authorities might have let him in because, as he did not have a passport, our authorities might not have let him back in. As this is Christmas, however, I do not think that I will pursue that matter any further.

I acknowledge that I shall clearly be unable to comment on all the speeches. Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), raised important constituency issues and I shall ensure that those points, as well as any others that I do not cover, are drawn to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised a specific point on whaling and I was slightly surprised that he did not know—I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West does—that the United Kingdom has been consistently critical of Japanese whaling for research purposes. At meetings of the international whaling conference we have played a major part in the adoption of several resolutions calling on countries to stop lethal research whaling in International Whaling Commission sanctuaries and for research on whales anywhere to be conducted using non-lethal means, except in exceptional circumstances. We have made it clear that we object to the use of the electric lance in that context. There is no doubt about the United Kingdom Government's position—that should be firmly on the record.

I understand that the legal action in Japan involving Mr. Votier is not a criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit taken out by the Japanese Institute of Cetaceous Research, if I have the title correct. For the British Government to seek to interfere in civil proceedings in another country would not be easy—it would be difficult enough to interfere in criminal proceedings. I hope that that point will be registered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and the hon. Member for Perry Barr raised two important issues: Holloway and the lottery regulator. On the subject of Holloway, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to whom I was speaking about the issue yesterday, visited Holloway last year, and as a result of that visit action was already being taken. In October more than £300,000 was added to Holloway's budget to provide extra staff and fully trained new staff are due to join next month. Senior management at headquarters are working with the governor to set firm targets for improvements and dates by which the targets should be achieved. Yesterday, arrangements were made to send 16 staff on loan to Holloway from other establishments to help ease the immediate problems. I hope that I have been able to give the hon. Member for Perry Barr some information and some reassurance that the problem is not only recognised but is already being tackled.

On the issue of the lottery regulator, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham will have read the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to the regulator, dated yesterday, in which she made it clear that she expects him to

"maintain a proper distance from the company"—

Camelot—

"and its constituent parts, and be seen to do so, taking all steps to guard against possible misunderstanding"

of his actions.

In her letter my right hon. Friend drew attention to a number of factors, which I hope the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will, at the very least, bear in mind. The visits to America—the subject of the controversy—took place some months after the award of the main licence to Camelot. I do not think that anyone has suggested otherwise—certainly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepted that there was no question of the regulator having sought or received personal gain from the visits that he undertook. It is important that that fact should at least be placed on the record.

In the remaining minutes I shall comment on as many issues as possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham made a number of points about local authority spending on what they regard as political campaigning in respect of grant-maintained school ballots. Regulations limit local education authority expenditure on influencing the outcome of ballots. I acknowledge that my right hon. and hon. Friends do not regard those limits as adequate. Shortly after Christmas we expect a further education Bill on grant-maintained schools and my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to pursue aspects of the argument in that context.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and I had some exchanges about cold-weather payments during, I think, business questions last week and I do not think that I can add to what I said then. I also had some exchanges in the House about knives—I cannot add to what I said then. I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's support for the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and that attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's other suggestions.

As usual, I have improved the range of my knowledge during our debate; I am unbelievably well informed about the Isle of Wight. I know the location of every lightship, buoy, sewer outfall, school and hospital and the size of the grant to the local citizens advice bureau—I shall be unable to cover all those issues. I now know much more about light dues around the British coast: apparently, they are administered by three general lighthouse authorities, including one called the commissioner of Irish lights, which no doubt operates as close to Belfast as anyone can. Fascinated though I am by the subject, I had better not engage in it any further today.

The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) made a number of points about St. George's hospital —which I believe I visited when I was Minister for Health—and London health services in general. Clearly, I do not have time to rehearse that debate now. As a Member of Parliament who represents part of Essex, I know that the home counties, including Essex, have long felt that the sharing of resources between London and the home counties was not fair. I believe that the Government have been right to tackle that problem and to recognise the need to shift the resources to where the population has moved historically—to the counties around London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), not for the first time in an Adjournment debate, made a number of references to Essex. I recognise his concerns about care in the community, and I am glad that, following the representations that a number of us made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, he has asked the social security inspectorate to consider the provision of community care in Essex.

I have made at least as many comments as I could have been expected to make in such a short time. I think I have done rather well. Even though nobody wished me a happy Christmas, I wish everyone a happy Christmas.

Our most recent full debate on this topic was on the day before the Christmas recess in 1994, although it was at a somewhat less congenial hour—about 4.30 am. This shorter debate today gives us an opportunity to review the progress since then.

The then Secretary of State for Transport announced in 1991 that the channel tunnel rail link would run through east London, because it would bring regeneration to east London. If there were to be no station in east London, however, there would be no regeneration, either. In good faith, the Government should honour the commitment they made in choosing the route for the channel tunnel rail link.

The transport case for the Stratford station is a compelling one. Stratford is a better station location for users of the rail link based in east and much of south London. Given the Jubilee line extension, Stratford is better for users from Westminster, and for users from the City, Essex and East Anglia. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in his place this morning, and that hon. Members from Essex and East Anglia have signed early-day motion 126.

The Thames Gateway Partnership was launched in the City at the European bank for reconstruction and development on 1 December. The event was extremely well attended, and it was distinguished by the strong support voiced for an international station at Stratford in the speeches of both the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, and Mr. Neil Kinnock, the European Transport Commissioner.

I wish to highlight the developments since the previous debate, because they have powerfully advanced the case for Stratford. I shall concentrate on just two: first, the July report of the Select Committee on Transport; secondly, the publication of the London Pride Partnership's transport action programme.

The Select Committee, after its exhaustive deliberations, gave a ringing endorsement to the Stratford proposal. It identified the national and regional importance of the Stratford proposal and urged that the necessary powers for the station under the transport and works legislation should be obtained as soon as possible. That was a welcome and important decision, which recognised the case for Stratford at national level, which we had not previously achieved. We debated that report last summer.

The second development I wish to highlight is the launch of the London Pride programme last month. That was significant, because of the breadth of support it has achieved from local government and the business sector in London. The transport action programme that London Pride has produced represents a remarkable consensus among all those concerned about the future of London.

In the foreword to the programme, signed by Lord Sheppard and Toby Harris, the leader of Haringey council and chairman of the Association of London Authorities, one of the main priorities of the programme of action is

"the award of the concession for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with an international station at Stratford".

All the London boroughs, London First, the Confederation of British Industry and the London chamber of commerce have recognised the Stratford station decision as one of the keys to the future of transport in London. As the Stratford promoter group has shown, the proposal can be achieved at no cost to Government.

One of the benefits of the Stratford station proposal is the excellent onward connections that Stratford can offer to the north. The Minister may be aware that the proposal, in its initial form, for additional tunnelling at Islington—which I support—could jeopardise some of those connections. Newham council, of which I am still a member, is working with the London borough of Islington on a proposal that would give the extra protection in Islington that the Select Committee advocated, without jeopardising Stratford's link to the west coast main line.

When we debated this topic at 4.30 am a year ago, the Minister intimated that a final decision would be announced in spring 1995. We have not yet had that decision, and I understand that there will be a decision in January. I appeal to the Minister to make a real and substantial decision. Some people are saying that the Government will duck the issue, by leaving it to somebody else to make the decision. It is a priority for the capital, as London Pride has demonstrated, and it is important to the national interest, as the Select Committee has shown.

This matter cannot be left to the vagaries of purely commercial decision-making. The Government need to make this decision; they have always suggested that they will; and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm today that that remains their intention. The Government should now resolve swiftly, clearly and unequivocally in favour of Stratford International.

Unfortunately, I am advised that the procedures of the House mean that, as I have already spoken this morning, I cannot make a separate speech. However, I can intervene.

I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) understands my personal commitment to Newham. As the House has become tired of hearing, it is the place where I was born, and I still have family there. The case for having the international railway station at Stratford is very strong. There is enormous support from Conservative Members of Parliament in Essex and in East Anglia for having the international railway station at Stratford.

From my point of view, on the Conservative Benches, I am very proud that the Conservative Government built the channel tunnel, and I am very proud of what they did in the London docklands. I believe fundamentally that the case for the international railway station being at Stratford will enhance the success of the docklands. There will be an enormous benefit for constituents in Essex and East Anglia if we have the railway station at Stratford.

Does the hon. Member join me in hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the House a Christmas present by announcing in the new year that the railway station will be at Stratford?

I gladly endorse many of the points that the hon. Member has made, especially the last one about the aspiration for a Christmas present from the Minister. I gladly acknowledge and put on the record the long-standing and unwavering support that the hon. Member has given to the interests of Newham and to the case for the international station at Stratford. I agree with his assessment of the importance of this proposal, not just for east London, but for Essex and East Anglia. I have already said that I especially appreciate the support that many Conservative Members have given to the proposals by signing the early-day motion.

The channel tunnel was built by a private sector organisation rather than by the Government, but I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon that it is an important element of our infrastructure. We need to ensure that it brings benefit not just to London, but to Essex and East Anglia. An international station at Stratford would help to make that possible.

Stratford is in my constituency, but I am in favour of the proposed international station not because of a narrow constituency interest, but because, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, the project involves all London. I am glad that the three Members who represent Newham, together with supporters on the Government Benches, have worked together on the campaign for Stratford international station.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that campaign is an example of the public and private sectors working together? Organisations across London of all political persuasions have said that the station should be located at Stratford, as have Conservative Members. Is that not a perfect example of a co-operative venture? Does my hon. Friend agree that that should impress the Government? Given the enormous support across the House and across London and the south-east for the station to be located at Stratford, we cannot understand why it has taken the Government so long to make a decision.

I agree. I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend is with us this morning, and I know that to some extent we owe that to the immigration authorities at Zurich.

A year ago, the Minister acknowledged the impressive nature of the public-private sector partnership which supports the Stratford proposal. I agree with my hon. Friend: I hope that the Minister and the Government will swiftly make the decision for which so many of us have been pressing for such a long time.

I am glad to join my hon. Friends from Newham, and the support from Basildon of all places, in praising a multi-party, multi-beneficial investment in public transport. I say "public transport" even though there may be a slightly different emphasis on the manner in which it is funded. That is now less important than the principle.

I am also glad to support the Stratford proposal because I can support, surprisingly enough, two aspects of Government policy that are intimately connected with it. That may sound strange, but it is absolutely true.

The first policy with which I agree is the provision of the station works at Stratford without cost to the public purse. That will not come under the various formulae that we have talked about or the private finance initiative, but it will be funded by the Stratford Development Partnership and those in the area who are willing to provide the capital for the station inside the concrete box that is part of the works that have been agreed. That is wholly in line with the Government's policy of private enterprise, and development from private means. On this occasion at least, the Opposition have no objection to that.

The second aspect of Government policy with which I agree is something that I heard the Secretary of State for Transport, no less, express only this morning on "Today"—a programme which often reflects, or perhaps leads, rightly or wrongly, what happens in the Chamber. He said that the Government want more and more people to travel by rail. That is good news, particularly when congestion is caused by cars and other traffic in Greater London. A station at Stratford would contribute not just to international facilities but to traffic flow in Greater London. We all know that people choose to travel by the underground not just because of the time saved, but because of the convenience of it.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Stratford location is truly extraordinary. Whether trains from the channel tunnel rail link will eventually stop there or not, the existing rail network from Stratford is considerable. Fortunately, I have time to spell out the links from Stratford to other parts of Greater London. One can travel around the North London link to Richmond, Cambridge and beyond, to Stansted airport.

Stratford is linked to two branches of the Central line, one to Epping and one to Hainault. It is linked to two, possibly three branches of the Great Eastern line to Southend, Clacton, Chelmsford and Norwich. It is also possible to take a night service from Stratford to Barking and Southend, and indeed to Basildon by another route.

In future, there may be a permanent service operating every half an hour from Stratford to the royal docks, and beyond, under the Thames, to Woolwich and north Kent, should the proposed link be built. At the moment, it is perfectly possible to travel to north Woolwich and the important development and exhibition centres and the university college of East London at the royal docks.

Stratford will also be connected to the Jubilee line, on which it will be possible to travel to London Bridge, Waterloo, Westminster, central London and beyond. Stratford is also on the docklands light railway, which connects to Canary Wharf, which is an important development, whatever one may think of it. It may well be possible, should that line be extended, to travel on to Lewisham.

Stratford is also on the Central line, and is thus linked to central London through the Oxford street access. In addition, if crossrail is built, that would add a through line to Paddington, London airport, Reading and perhaps as far south as Bristol or Exeter. Such is the network to which Stratford has, or is soon likely to have, access.

I do not want to pour cold water on the comments of the hon. Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who have said that passengers from south London and Kent would be able to use Stratford station, but may I remind them that Ebbsfleet international station has already been approved for the route? Due to the excellence of the South Eastern Railway Company, it will be able to cater precisely for those people from south London and Kent. That does not detract, however, from the advantages of Stratford to Essex and north London.

The hon. Member speaks for north Kent, and Ebbsfleet will be a valuable link on the network. We all know that there are breakdowns on every line for good or bad reasons. If trains have to stop at Ebbsfleet, it may be possible to change to alternative routes. It is to those alternatives that I wish to refer.

The channel tunnel rail link should go to King's Cross and St. Pancras by some means or another. Many visitors to London get taxis from King's Cross or St. Pancras to their hotels or an exhibition centre, so they are the preferable stations to which the rail link should go. A station at Stratford would also offer additional access to the channel tunnel rail link to many people in Greater London through designated trains or routes, and could provide luggage facilities for passengers. If things go wrong—they go wrong in the best regulated circumstances—trains have to be reversed from a station further out—for example, Reading. A station at Stratford would offer an additional facility to cope with such problems.

I believe that the choice of Stratford would add to the returns of traffic on the route. We know that the rail link has been subject to financial difficulties, so I suggest to the Minister that everything points to supporting the works order, and thus creating a station at Stratford.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House again. As he reminded us, we last debated it a year ago, at a less sociable hour. I know that he and many other hon. Members have campaigned long and vigorously for an intermediate station at Stratford. I understand their concern and impatience that a decision should be made without further delay. I therefore welcome the opportunity to inform the House of the current position on the proposal.

On the occasion of our previous debate, I explained the process by which the Government had reached decisions to date about intermediate stations on the rail link. I described the position as it then stood, and how we saw things moving forward to a final decision. I also acknowledged that an international station would assist the regeneration of the Stratford area. I also drew attention, however, to the need to be sure that there was a good economic case for it.

At that time, we were hopeful that we would be able to reach a decision in the early part of this year. In the event, the nature and complexity of the bids received from the consortia bidding to construct and operate the rail link, and their proposals for a possible Stratford station, meant that that decision has had to be delayed. I do not apologise for that, because the Government have to be sure that they make the right decision on the basis of all the necessary information. The important thing is that no time has been wasted in the process of reaching a decision.

The Government and the two short-listed consortia have had the opportunity to address the concerns expressed in the various recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport, which considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.

The Minister said that the Government must ensure that they make the right decision. When reaching a decision about Stratford, will the Minister take into account strategic reasons, or will he look only at the commercial case put by the developers? He said that the Government must make the right decision. What factors will influence the Government?

I shall come to that issue in a moment. The Government will be influenced by a broad range of factors, including some of those to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.

The Stratford promoter group has continued to lobby very hard, and there have been a number of meetings with Ministers. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that it is an excellent example of public sector and private sector co-operation, the like of which we are seeing increasingly in London and around the country.

The group made presentations both to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), and to me in February. I also had the pleasure of accepting an invitation to visit Stratford in March on a very wet day, and I was impressed by the strength of support from the local community. More recently, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), has also met representatives of the group.

The group has argued that patronage of, and therefore revenue from, the CTRL would be increased, that the station could be built at no cost to the Government, and that there would be substantial regeneration benefits. It has argued strongly that the total realised from the sale of development lands in the area would exceed the cost of providing the station, and that the site offers the prospect of a major new public transport interchange of national and international significance. It is accepted that Stratford is now an extremely important public transport interchange, and I can see advantages in expanding that role. I know, too, that a great deal of work has been done in estimating land values and on associated planning issues.

The promoter group's funding proposals rely heavily on income to be derived from the sale of development lands—the Stratford railway lands. The Government have always reserved the right to consider other funding approaches and have invited the CTRL bidders to put forward alternative funding proposals if they so wish.

However, in order to ensure that the approach of the station promoter group remains viable, the Government undertook to ensure that the Stratford railway lands should remain available pending a decision on the future of the station. Concern has been expressed from time to time as to whether that is still the case, and I am happy to confirm the assurances that I and other Ministers have given, that there will be no piecemeal disposals and that the Stratford railway lands will remain fully available until a decision on the station is made.

I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. In raising again the decision about Stratford, do the Government intend to decide for or against the Stratford station, or will they allow someone else to make the decision? I urge the Minister to assure the House that the Government will make that decision.

I shall come to that issue. We might make a decision in favour of the station, but we shall not make a decision against it. I will explain that comment later. I assure hon. Members that we shall certainly not duck a decision.

The Government will decide shortly whether a Stratford station should be provided now, and, if so, whether it should be a combined international and domestic station or an international station only. The possibility of having a station at some point in the future has already been secured as a result of the Government's acceptance this summer of the recommendations from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.

The promoter will now be required to construct a long box at Stratford rather than the shorter version envisaged originally, which would have met only the operational requirements of the railway. The long box will be large enough to house the platforms and the other passenger facilities that are needed for a combined international and domestic station. Even if the decision is taken next year not to provide a station immediately, the possibility of adding one at a later stage will remain.

The decision will be either "yes" or "possibly in the future". It will not be "no", because the possibility of a station has been secured by the requirement to build the long box as part of the main construction of the link.

At the beginning of the CTRL affair, British Rail espoused the wonderful theory that the economics of building a railway meant that, the fewer stops there were, the more money would be made. I am relieved to discover that Ministers have taken a rather different view. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is easier for passengers to get on and off the train when it stops?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Too many stops may reduce the frequency of services and may diminish revenue, but if the argument that it is better for trains not to stop is pursued to its logical conclusion, it means running trains that stop only at each end of the line—which would probably not maximise revenue.

The Government will decide whether to proceed immediately and, if so, how that would be financed. However, the views of the two short-listed bidders on the costs and benefits of such a station, and particularly the effect that it would have in terms of increasing or reducing the contribution sought from Government for the project, are key factors in that decision.

The bidders have been instructed to treat the long box as a minimum requirement, to price for a fully combined international and domestic station, and then to say how their bids would be adjusted for an international station only or no station at all. In that way, we shall receive the full range of available financial information.

With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), does the Minister agree that the existence of some clause of which people are unaware, that traffic and fares are directly related to some formula involving distance and journey time, would be incompatible with the commonly held view? Stopping at a station may add only five minutes to the journey time but prove of inestimable benefit to many people, and thus increase traffic and revenue at the same time.

An extra stop might reduce the total number of trains that could be run. Against that, we must balance the extent to which the provision of an extra stop might generate additional passengers and revenue. Those are the sort of judgments that we must take on the basis of the best evidence available. The bidding consortia are also considering those matters when submitting their bids to us and indicating whether a scheme with a Stratford station is a better business proposition than a scheme without it.

If a decision is made in favour of a station, it will be promoted by an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which will provide the mechanism for the necessary planning consents. The process of securing such an order could begin next year, and, subject to securing the necessary approvals, should be capable of being completed and the station constructed within the same time scale as the completion of construction of the rail link.

Will the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that the final decision will be based on all strategic considerations, including the recognition by his predecessors, such as the present Deputy Prime Minister, that it is not simply a transport project but a vital contribution to the economic infrastructure of the area? Will he assure us that that strategic decision will be taken by the Government, and not by any consortium for commercial reasons?

I have already said that the Government will make the decision, and that we shall take into account a wide range of factors, including the strategic considerations to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West have referred.

Apart from the CTRL effects and other transport benefits, another key factor in the decision-making process will be the regeneration benefits to be derived from an international station. The hon. Members for Newham, North-West, for Newham, North-East and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have been persuasive advocates of the contribution that a station would make to the regeneration of the Stratford area. We had substantial correspondence on that point following last year's debate.

I do not accept that east London would derive no economic benefits if there were no station development at Stratford. There is already substantial investment in transport, infrastructure and so on in east London. None the less, I accept—as I did when replying to the debates last year and in March—that a CTRL station at Stratford would prove a significant additional boost to those initiatives, and to the development of the Thames gateway as a whole.

In evaluating bids, the Government will carefully consider the assumptions about the viability of the station, the scope and nature of regeneration benefits, and the possible impact on the CTRL generally of a Stratford station. We shall also take into account other possible developments in transport infrastructure, such as the opening of the Jubilee line extension in 1998, and how traffic patterns and levels of use on existing and proposed transport links might respond to the opening of an international station.

In reaching their views on the costs and benefits of the various options, the two bidders have had the opportunity of extensive discussions with the Stratford promoter group. By deferring a decision until the final bids from the two short-listed consortia have been received, we have sought to give the promoter group and the bidders the maximum opportunity to make their best case for a station.

Order. Time is up.

I am most grateful to have been given the opportunity to raise in an Adjournment debate the subject of schools in Broadstairs.

I shall devote most of my speech to the individual and separate problems of three schools in Broadstairs that have become most inappropriately entangled in a complex dispute and need some help—perhaps even a touch of the wisdom of Solomon—from my hon. Friend the Minister if the dispute is to be sorted out swiftly and satisfactorily to the benefit of several hundred local schoolchildren, their anxious families and their worried teachers. Before I focus on the dispute and make some suggestions for solving it, I shall make some general comments on the wider subject of school education in Broadstairs because it is, on the whole, a sparkling success story in which our local community rightly takes great pride.

Broadstairs is a charming town on the Kent coast with a residential population of approximately 25,000 and a flourishing education sector consisting of 12 schools. They include at secondary level Holy Cross school and St. George's grant-maintained school, whose GCSE examination results last year were top of the league tables for non-selective schools in Kent and second top in the league table for modern schools in the entire country. Charles Dickens grant-maintained school has a new science block under construction and scored a commendable 89 per cent. pass rate among its GCSE candidates taking five or more subjects. Dane Court grant-maintained school had its best ever year for examination results last year, with a 95 per cent. pass rate among GCSE candidates taking five or more subjects.

At junior level, Broadstairs has three good schools: Upton, Bromstone and St. Peter's, to which I shall refer in a moment. There are also two infant schools: St. Mildred's and Callis Grange, which also features in the dispute that is central to the debate.

I should also mention that the independent sector flourishes in Broadstairs with Haddon Dene school, St. Joseph's convent school and Wellesley House school—the latter being one of the outstanding preparatory schools in the country. Perhaps I should declare an interest as I say those words of praise about Wellesley House, as our own three children have had remarkably happy and successful educations there.

What all those schools in Broadstairs have in common are high standards, dedicated teachers and a keen sense of mutual interest and interaction with the local community. When something goes right, such as the good examination results that I have just mentioned, the whole community sits up and takes notice.

The same is also true, however, if something goes wrong. That is why I now refer to a subject that is in danger of going wrong on the Broadstairs education scene—the dispute affecting three schools—and that is the main focus of the debate.

At the heart of the dispute is a question mark hanging over the future of one of the oldest and most respected schools in Broadstairs. That is St. Peter's school, or to give it its formal title, St. Peter's in Thanet Church of England aided junior school. Unfortunately, St. Peter's also has the less happy distinction of having some of the worst premises in the entire county in the shape of its 19th-century physical facilities.

St. Peter's has the fundamental disadvantage of being a split-site school, with its two main buildings separated by a high street. The busy traffic creates daily physical risks for the pupils. The buildings deserve the overworked adjective "Dickensian", for they are overcrowded, unhealthy, damp and dangerous.

To give the House a vivid picture of St. Peter's in the winter rain, I can do no better than quote a report written last autumn by the school's then chairman of governors, Mr. Norman Morland:

"As chairman of governors I visited the school on Wednesday 13 October, following several days of heavy autumnal rain. For the sake of the morale of all concerned, I went over to the high street building and can only say that I was appalled by what I saw. The atmosphere was akin to that of a hot house in Kew. Buckets and bowls were everywhere to catch the rain. Water was trickling down one of the walls, the pages of the books were curling up in the moisture-laden air, there was fungus on the cupboard walls. The catalogue could continue on and on.

In the midst of all this the staff and the pupils worked heroically and deserve the highest commendation for continuing in conditions that are totally unacceptable and are deleterious to health of pupil and teacher."

So much for the bad news, which was well recorded in Mr. Morland's vivid prose and confirmed by a recent report by the Office of Standards in Education inspectorate. However, that bad news is on the verge of being consigned to the archives of history because the good news is that the local education authority, Kent county council and the Canterbury diocesan board of education, after many long and disappointing delays, have put forward an excellent proposal for a new St. Peter's school building.

That building project, which received no objections during the consultation period and was overwhelmingly well supported by the local community, is for a new, enlarged third-form entry junior school for 360 pupils. The new St. Peter's school would consist of 12 classrooms to be built around a central courtyard on land already owned by the local education authority adjacent to Callis Grange infant school. The funding for the project—some £1.6 million—is now in place, so until the recent unexpected dispute erupted, the new St. Peter's school was ready to roll, confidently on schedule to open its doors in September 1997.

I should emphasise that the new St. Peter's school building is being developed alongside another important school building development on the same site—that of Callis Grange county infant school. Callis Grange school, which currently has 356 pupils on its roll, suffers from an overcrowding problem, which has been temporarily alleviated by the use of five mobile classrooms and a mobile toilet block.

The facilities are woefully inadequate, particularly in the freezing, wind-chill weather conditions that prevailed last week. The LEA recognised the problem, which is exacerbated by the growing demand for school places in Broadstairs, and gave its full backing to a building project that would enlarge the school by 90 extra places. That means building new classroom accommodation to cope with the expected increase in the school roll and to replace some of the mobiles. The enlargement of Callis Grange school is scheduled to take place in time for the new classrooms to be opened in September 1997. As the project is being built on the same site and time scale as the new St. Peter's school, the two developments need to proceed simultaneously.

Against that background, I hope that it is clear to my hon. Friend that the substantial combined building project of a new school for St. Peter's and enlarged classrooms for Callis Grange is important and urgent in terms of the physical facilities and the basic need for more school places in Broadstairs.

Broadstairs is sometimes thought of as a town for retired people, but the community is becoming demographically more well balanced and has an increasing number of young families moving into the area. There was consternation among those young families, whose children require adequate provision for primary and infant school places, when the news broke recently that the St. Peter's and Callis Grange building projects had been halted in their tracks because of a totally unexpected and unpredictable obstacle in the form of eight letters of statutory objection signed by 10 Broadstairs residents. They were all dated 9 November. The letters were received by my hon. Friend's Department just two days before the period for objections to the public notices expired on 12 November. Those objections have the explosive potential to block or seriously delay the St. Peter's and Callis Grange school building developments unless they are withdrawn or my hon. Friend uses her statutory ministerial powers swiftly to overrule them.

I said a few moments ago that the unexpected arrival of those last-minute objections caused consternation in Broadstairs, but in some ways the word "consternation" is an understatement. For I am sorry to have to report that there was also a degree of anger and astonishment when it became apparent that the letters of objection were identical in text and had apparently been organised by the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Southwark's commission for schools in Kent, in order to draw attention to the plight of St. Joseph's convent school in Broadstairs, which faced the possibility of closure.

Needless to say, there are two sides to this story and I shall endeavour to explain sympathetically and constructively the anxieties of the archdiocese of Southwark about St. Joseph's in a moment. Nevertheless the manner and format in which those essentially bogus, although paradoxically sincere, objections were lodged raised the bizarre spectacle of a sectarian divide in Broadstairs, in which Roman Catholics were suspected of blocking the urgently needed building of a Church of England school.

I hasten to assure the House that those fears are not justified. Broadstairs has not suddenly become Belfast. The religious communities in the town remain on good terms, not least because local Catholic leaders such as Father Ronald Duggan, the parish priest of Broadstairs, and Canon Bill Clements, the dean of Thanet, have made it clear that the local Roman Catholic community has no objections to the St. Peter's school building project.

Meanwhile the Church of England vicar of St. Peter's, Canon Nick Bury, who is also chairman of the governors of St. Peter's school, has made it clear that there is nothing but Anglican good will towards St. Joseph's convent school, whose future aspirations should not affect the St. Peter's building project at all and should be seen as a quite separate issue, important though it is to the Catholic community of Broadstairs.

Let me therefore now refer to the separate issue of the future of St. Joseph's convent school. That excellent independent private school, which has approximately 100 Catholic pupils of primary school age, has for many years been run and subsidised by the sisters of the Christian retreat in Broadstairs. Sadly, the sisters, whose numbers and resources are declining, have decided that they can no longer continue to subsidise the operation of the school after 1997.

The archdiocese of Southwark, after taking local soundings in Broadstairs, came to the conclusion that, rather than see a much loved Catholic school close, it would make greater sense to try to continue the excellent traditions of St. Joseph's by seeing whether it could be taken into the maintained sector as a primary school. Confidential discussions between the LEA and the archdiocese for that purpose therefore started earlier this year.

I think it fair to say that there must have been some misunderstandings in those discussions, since for some reason or other the archdiocese came to believe that the only way to protect the future interest of St. Joseph's was to lodge objections to the St. Peter's and Callis Grange building project at the last minute in order to draw the attention of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to the full background of primary school options in Broadstairs. I hope that I have now explained enough about the background to primary school education in Broadstairs to demonstrate that there is a basic need for, and room for, a new and enlarged St. Peter's Church of England primary school and a St. Joseph's Roman Catholic primary school, transferred from the independent sector to the maintained sector as a voluntary-aided Roman Catholic school.

Since I started balloting for this Adjournment debate, further talks have been held between the LEA and the archdiocese of Southwark. A few days ago the Kent education committee, with much input and encouragement from Councillor Fred Shutler, the energetic county councillor for Broadstairs, decided to support the proposal to establish a new voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school in Broadstairs in September 1997, on the basis that the LEA will be submitting a bid for 90 additional primary school places for Thanet in 1997. Those additional places, taken together with the existing roll of St. Joseph's, will provide ample justification for the proposed new one-form entry primary school.

Against that background, and even though there is no real linkage between the St. Joseph's and the St. Peter's projects, it does seem that this should be a story that will have a happy outcome early in 1996, bringing to an end the current tense dispute affecting the three schools that I have been talking about.

So in order that those three schools can live happily ever after, I now ask my hon. Friend to respond, I hope affirmatively, to the key questions that need to be answered. So far as St. Joseph's is concerned, can my hon. Friend confirm that her Department has received, or expects to receive, a bid from Kent local education authority for additional primary school places for Thanet in 1997? Will she look favourably on the proposal, which I know her officials are aware of, for a new St. Joseph's voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school, to open in September 1997?

So far as St. Peter's school and Callis Grange school are concerned, can my hon. Friend the Minister announce that she is now minded—or soon will be minded—to approve the LEA's and the Canterbury diocesan board's proposals for the combined building projects to go ahead as planned and in good time for the new St. Peter's school and the new Callis Grange classrooms to open their doors in September 1997?

If my hon. Friend is minded, in this season of peace and good will, to indicate her approval for all those projects this afternoon, I can assure her that she will be giving the education world in Broadstairs the best possible Christmas present.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on securing this important Adjournment debate on the schools in his constituency. He is well known as a champion of the excellent education in South Thanet, and his diligence in requesting this debate is a testament to his attitude to his constituency and its schools.

I want to begin by discussing some general issues that my right hon. Friend raised, not least the sparkling success of the schools in his constituency. I am delighted to hear about the high standards being achieved in Broadstairs schools, which clearly owe much to the excellent quality of the teaching. Once again, we must applaud the enthusiasm and dedication of the teaching profession, which has so rightly been described as a vocation.

School improvement is always at the top of the Government's agenda. It is also encouraging to note that this year's GCSE results for Broadstairs continue to be good. I am aware that three of the four secondary schools are grant-maintained, and their success is a testament to the GM policy.

We firmly believe that self-government is the best way of running schools. It sets schools free to decide for themselves how they use their resources and to target them where they will have most effect. It means that they can keep and develop their distinctive characters to meet the needs of the communities that they serve. Self-government releases the energies of teachers and governors by giving them responsibility for their schools' futures, and they certainly rise to that challenge. GM schools are well managed, achieve excellent results as they have done in Broadstairs, and are clearly popular with parents. They can get things done quickly, without waiting for town hall bureaucracy to get things moving, and they are directly accountable to local parents.

In Kent, more than half the secondary pupils are now being educated in GM schools. Parents have voted yes in ballots on going GM, so it is pretty clear that Kent parents support self-government of schools. It is a pity that we do not often see a positive approach on the part of Kent county council. It has been quite hostile to grant-maintained status, and it makes life as difficult as possible once schools have decided to ballot.

The development of GM schools is only one aspect of the Government's mission to promote excellence in education. We are also funding initiatives to encourage the development of specialist schools, which bring together three important strands of our education and employment policies: raising standards, extending choice and diversity, and linking schools and the business community. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the popularity of our specialist schools programme; indeed Sandwich high school, in South Thanet, has recently been designated a technology college. That programme proves that education and business want to work together. Each technology or language college is backed by sponsorship of about £100,000; private sector sponsorship for school education totals more than £14 million as a result of the programme.

The specialist schools programme is outstandingly popular. It was launched only in September 1993, but there are now more than 140 schools in it. There are 127 technology colleges as well as the first 16 language colleges. As there is stiff competition for places in the programme, all the schools approved can be proud of their success.

I have more good news about Kent to add to that presented by my right hon. Friend. We have been able to confirm our support for capital spending on schools. The figures for Kent are not available, but we have national figures, as I announced yesterday. Despite the tight public spending round, we have been able to secure capital spending for 1996–97 in local education authority maintained schools at a level that is 7 per cent. higher than the current year. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping LEAs improve the quality of their school buildings.

It is for LEAs, however, to decide their own capital expenditure priorities and to make the best use of the resources that are available to them. The annual capital guidelines, the ACGs, that have been announced are not tied to particular projects. Nor do they represent the total of resources available to LEAs for capital spending. The authorities are able also to invest their capital receipts. They can use funds from their revenue budgets for capital purposes if they wish. The Government do not control the funding of individual projects at county or voluntary-controlled schools.

The Kent local education authority was given an ACG of £23,223,000 in 1996–97. That was by far the largest in the country. That sum represents 40 per cent. of its total bid. It is significantly above the national average of 23 per cent. The ACG largely reflects the extent to which the authority's plans for spending on schools matched the national priority criteria.

Allocations for voluntary-aided schools' capital works have increased by 7 per cent. to £62 million in 1996–97. There has been set aside £38 million for repair grants in line with 1995–96.

Allocations for basic need and exceptional basic need will be much higher in 1996–97 than in recent years. They will be about £6.6 million compared with £2.5 million in 1995–96. The allocations for grant-maintained schools continue to show a healthy increase as well, from £130 million in the current year to £138 million in 1996–97. Those figures demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving standards in education. The examples given by my right hon. Friend provide encouraging evidence of the success of our policies in practice.

My right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House to Callis Grange and St. Peter's schools in Thanet. Both schools are in Broadstairs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that as an enlarged county infant school and a new Church of England junior in Broadstairs will be considered in the context of statutory proposals, those matters are currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot comment in detail on the issues that he raised. I am well aware, however, of the problems surrounding the provision of primary school places in Broadstairs.

My officials visited St. Peter's junior school earlier this year. They were able to advise the governors and Kent LEA on how to proceed. My right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot prejudge the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I can assure my right hon. Friend, however, that I have listened carefully to what he said about the condition of the buildings used by pupils at Callis Grange and St. Peter's. I can give him my assurance that his description and the details that he has given will be taken into account.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive and helpful tone in which she is replying. I understand that, for statutory reasons, she cannot prejudge the ruling of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. But what is the timetable within which my right hon. Friend will make a decision'? If it is a favourable one, will it be made in good time to allow the building works to start within a period that will enable them to be completed so that the schools may open their doors in September 1997?

I understand my right hon. Friend's determination to try to extract from me a timetable, but I am unable to give him one today. I undertake to write to him in the new year. I shall try to give him an idea of the timetable for my right hon. Friend's decisions.

As for St. Joseph's school, I should explain that we have not yet received any statutory proposals to establish a new voluntary-aided Roman Catholic primary school in Broadstairs. That remains an outstanding matter. If and when we do receive such proposals, we shall consider them fully and carefully, and as speedily as possible.

On a more positive note, I can confirm that we have accepted in principle the basic need case for additional primary school places in Broadstairs. For reasons that I think I have explained fully, I cannot comment on whether those places will be provided at St. Peter's and St. Joseph's, bearing in mind the need for the statutory process. I cannot go beyond saying that, if the proposals are approved, funding will, of course, follow.

I am sorry that I am unable to deliver all the Christmas presents on my right hon. Friend's list. I trust that he will accept my reply as just a little stocking filler.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the future of motor sport facilities in Scotland. I shall use the debate to highlight the success of Scotland's national motor sport centre at Knockhill in my constituency and express the grave concerns that I and many others have that a proposed alternative facility at Forrestburn in Lanarkshire could lead to no winners, only losers, and a waste of public money.

If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want an exciting day out, I recommend that they head for Knockhill rather than remain at Westminster. Knockhill is recognised by the Scottish Sports Council and the Scottish Motor Sport Federation as Scotland's national motor sport centre. The track deals with a wide range of car and motor cycle racing. It was declared the circuit of the year by the Touring Car Association. If the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members want to visit a successful private enterprise, I recommend Knockhill.

The track was rescued from receivership some years ago by the director, Derek Butcher, who has put more than £3 million of his own money into the venture. Knockhill has not received any public funding for capital expenditure yet it employs 16 full-time permanent staff directors. The track supports three franchise businesses on site with a further 10 permanent staff. It takes on up to an additional 100 part-time staff when there is a big event. It thus makes a considerable contribution to the local economy. In addition, when there is a big event such as the British championship for touring cars, hotels in the Fife area are fully booked. The circuit manager, Eric Houston, said:

"We put more people into hotels than Open Golf does",

and that is once a year, not once every four years.

Knockhill's success, however, is threatened by the proposed development at Forrestburn. I can understand the Minister saying that that is a shame but asking why it should concern the Government. Let me explain.

The Minister is aware that, because of their industrial decline, parts of Fife and parts of Lanarkshire are eligible for support from European structural funds. That means that decisions on proposed programmes for areas that seek European funding are taken by committees. The principal committees involved in taking decisions on individual projects such as that at Forrestburn are, I understand, the programme management committees for eastern and western Scotland. They are chaired by the Scottish Office development department, acting on behalf of the Government as the official implementing authority for European Union funding programmes.

The first reason, therefore, why the Government should be concerned about the future of Knockhill and the proposed development at Forrestburn is that the Scottish Office retains responsibility for the payment of European grant money and is ultimately responsible for the audit requirements. My understanding is that Forrestburn has been allocated £1.4 million in European grant money, so the Government have a direct interest.

The second reason why the Government should be concerned about the Forrestburn development is that there is strong evidence that the use of European money to support the project will, in effect, displace an existing facility—in other words, it will put Knockhill out of business. I understand that such a displacement contravenes the rules for European funding.

The Treasury defines displacement as occurring when support for one project has the effect of reducing economic activity in other parts of the economy. I understand that a displacement analysis has been undertaken, but considerable concern has been expressed by many organisations that do not believe that it went into sufficient depth to enable it to be established that the only way in which Forrestburn could be successful was by taking much of Knockhill's business.

It appears that key interests such as the Scottish Sports Council, Fife Enterprise, Fife regional council and Dunfermline district council were not fully consulted about their views on displacement. Scottish Enterprise told me in a letter dated 27 October this year that

"the developers of Forrestburn have not adequately addressed the question of displacement … if the Forrestburn project proceeds it may very well put Knockhill out of business."

In the past few days, Scottish Enterprise has changed its tune—one can only speculate why that is—but I hope that the Minister will want to satisfy himself about the adequacy of the displacement analysis that has apparently been conducted.

People with expertise and interest in motor sport facilities in Scotland believe that Forrestburn will be viable only if it takes business from Knockhill.

Although I do not know a great deal about Forrestburn, I agree wholeheartedly that Knockhill has been a huge success in hosting not only the touring car championship but motor cycle racing and weekly club events, which are so popular in Scotland. Whatever my hon. Friend the Minister says in reply, I hope that he will in no way deprecate Knockhill's achievement. It has been an outstanding success in recent years.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his support, which I know will be greatly appreciated by Knockhill. I have no doubt that Knockhill would look forward to a visit from him in the not too distant future.

Only a limited number of motor racing events attract sufficiently large crowds to make a business viable. I understand that at Knockhill only three events a year attract crowds of more than 5,000, and they are vital to Knockhill's commercial success. Forrestburn would have to compete with Knockhill and take those events from it if it was to be viable.

I believe that Forrestburn hopes to attract formula 1 racing, which Knockhill does not stage. I believe, however, that there is already fierce competition among existing tracks such as Brands Hatch for such events. Formula 1 racing is very costly, and the £6.5 million being talked about for the Forrestburn development would not support even the track safety and maintenance requirements of a formula 1 racing track for a single year.

A formula 1 track was opened in Japan this year. According to one set of figures, it cost £60 million to develop and will require £10 million every year just to maintain the facilities. Therefore, without a sufficient market in Scotland, public money could be wasted and a successful business badly, if not mortally, damaged.

Does the Minister believe that a detailed analysis was carried out by Lanarkshire development agency? Has a careful study been made of what events Forrestburn would host and the extent to which they would displace those that Knockhill has been successful in attracting? If a full consultation has not been carried out, will the Minister assure me that one will be undertaken; that it will involve experts in the industry, not only in Scotland but in the UK as a whole; and that it will be undertaken before any further attempt is made to decide whether there is sufficient business to support two racing tracks with such a short distance between them? The Minister's answers will be heard carefully not only by me and Knockhill but by the hotels and businesses in the Fife area, which gain so much from major motor sports events.

I have already touched on the third reason why Knockhill's future and the Forrestburn development should be of interest to the Minister. It is the apparent inadequacies in the decision-making arrangements that the proposals for Forrestburn have highlighted. I do not believe that key organisations such as Fife Enterprise and the Scottish Sports Council have been fully consulted. Not even the programme management committee for the east of Scotland was consulted. Although Forrestburn is a west of Scotland development, it will have a displacement effect on an existing east-of-Scotland facility. I understand that no direct approach to Knockhill has been made by the company involved in the Forrestburn development, Inreco, and that its only contact was three or four years ago—in a telephone discussion with KPMG Peat Marwick. Full consultation would have called into question the Forrestburn project's ability to satisfy the technical and financial eligibility appraisals and the core criteria, which include demonstrating clear evidence of demand.

I hope that the Minister will say that he believes that further investigation is necessary, and that a full and thorough displacement analysis will result, with all interested parties being fully consulted. If there is not the business to support two race tracks so close together, as I and others fear, we could end up with neither being commercially viable. Public money will have been used to build up false hopes in Lanarkshire, to ruin a successful private enterprise business in Fife and, I believe, to damage the sporting reputation of Scotland.

I hope that the Minister will bring some Christmas cheer to Knockhill and to all those who support it and are concerned with its future.

I understand that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) would like to contribute. Will the hon. Lady agree to that?

I am most willing to allow the right hon. Gentleman to contribute.

I shall say a few words in support of the position of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on Knockhill.

I have been deeply involved in motor racing and motor sport in Scotland since the war, as the former president of the Auto-cycle Union. One has seen, sadly, the demise of Charterhall and Ingliston, and Crimond up in the north. The one circuit that has been a success is Knockhill. I note that the hon. Lady said that it went through a difficult period, but in recent years it has come back very strongly indeed and is popular among competitors because in Scotland there is nowhere else to go. There are two or three major meetings that attract big crowds, particularly the touring car championship, which was an outstanding success not only at Knockhill but on television.

Many motor racing enthusiasts would have to travel far south, down to Croft or further into the midlands of England and to Oulton park if they wanted to take part in competitive motor sport. Knockhill has given them the opportunity to take part, through club meetings and renting the track for club groups. My own Bentley drivers club has a day out in August or September each year. That all brings valuable income to the area and to Fife generally. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider carefully the important issue of whether to promote what may, on paper, be an outstanding opportunity in Lanarkshire, to the detriment of Knockhill, which is so successful.

The hon. Lady flew kites about the enormous cost of major international events. It is all very well to say that we will attract formula 1 cars, but when it is difficult for a country to stage a grand prix, it is unlikely that we would get two—at Silverstone or Brands Hatch and one in Scotland. She rightly highlighted the immense cost of staging a grand prix, and the Pacific is likely to opt out next year. I think it wrong to say that we will have a formula 1 circuit, without any definite assurance that we will get a formula 1 race. The grand prix circuit is closely controlled. There is immense competition from Brands Hatch and, indeed, from Donington, which most drivers would say is a much more attractive course on which to drive than Brands Hatch.

It is not just a simple decision. We cannot just say that we should have a brand new circuit in Lanarkshire that would attract all the competition and sponsorship that is so central to modern motor racing. We should not go headlong for that concept, although it is a great vision, without realising that it could be to the detriment of Knockhill, which has done so much over the past 10 or 15 years to give those who are interested in motor sport the opportunity to participate.

I am particularly pleased to be here today to respond to the debate, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), and equally to have heard the wise words of experience from my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I am most grateful to both of them, because I believe that the debate enables us to clarify the position with regard to Knockhill race track and the proposed development at Forrestburn.

There was a discussion as to whether this was a sporting debate or an industrial development debate. I am the Minister responsible for industry and, therefore, perhaps the industrial development side. I looked at the background to the sporting side and asked to be briefed on the range of motor sports that are available in Scotland at present, and how many were pursued.

In motor car racing, we have motor racing itself; circuit racing of various classes; speed events; stage rallying, road rallying; auto tests and trials; and, indeed, stock car racing. There are around 40 motor cycling clubs in Scotland associated with the Scottish Motor Cycle Union. Events include moto-cross, road racing, speedway, motor cycle trials and motor cycle rallies. Events take place throughout Scotland—I shall come to Knockhill in a moment. We have, for example, a world-renowned auto-cross event that is held annually in Fort William, which attracts a top-quality field from Europe and America.

Scotland—as even I knew—has a long tradition of success in motor sport at both national and international level. In formula 1 racing, to which the hon. Lady referred, I remember very well Jim Clark being the world champion in 1963 and 1965; Jackie Stewart held the same title in 1969, 1971 and 1973.

More recently in formula 1 racing, there is David Coulthard, whom I thought was from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, but when I asked earlier today, I was told that he lives in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). David Coulthard's success in winning his first grand prix at Estoril in Portugal during this season, which has just finished, sets him up on a very promising motor racing career. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in wishing him every success with his new team, McLaren.

In the 1960s, Scotland had it is own motor racing stable. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is old enough to remember Ecurie Ecosse, but I certainly do, and the driving at Le Mans and the successes that it had over those years. It helped to develop many budding young drivers, such as Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart. In the past few years, we have also seen Colin MacRae, who has been highly successful in motor rallying. He won the Royal Automobile Club rally in 1994 and earlier this year became the first British competitor to win the world rallying championship; he won it in a nail-biting climax in the Network Q RAC rally, showing tremendous skill and courage to come through an arduous final stage. Another Scotsman, John Clelland, this year won the British touring car championship, to add to his previous title won in 1989.

I think that 1995 has been a tremendous year for Scottish motor sport. I cover all this to provide a backdrop to today's debate, to emphasise the importance of sport, particularly motor sport, within the Government's wider priorities, and to stress that the future of Knockhill race track, which is the issue that we are addressing today, has indeed been carefully considered.

The hon. Lady clearly and ably set out her concerns for the future of Knockhill; she has previously raised those concerns with me in writing. I wrote to her on 14 September and 12 December, explaining the situation with regard to the proposed development at Forrestburn.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, I am well aware of the success of the Knockhill race track in recent years. It has attracted top-level competition to the site, and has diversified its interests into other areas. I gather that it also carries out test circuit work for prominent motor companies. As the hon. Lady said, it is an excellent example of the benefits of private sector investment in sport. I join her in commending Derek Butcher for his success with Knockhill, which is currently recognised as the country's national centre by the Scottish Motor Sport Federation. I listened carefully to the concerns expressed about the proposed development of a new motor-racing circuit at Forrestburn in Monklands, and its potential impact on Knockhill. The hon. Lady pointed out that the Forrestburn project would receive financial support from public sector bodies—Monklands district council and Lanarkshire development agency—as well as from the European regional development fund. I understand that the concerns expressed about the potential displacement effect of the new race track on Knockhill have been carefully assessed by the funding partners.

The hon. Lady quoted from a letter from Scottish Enterprise, dated 27 October. I, too, have a copy of that letter. She also referred to a later letter dated 4 December, which states:

"Further to my letter of 27 October, I have now had the benefit of discussion with the Lanarkshire Development Agency from which I learned that a displacement analysis had indeed been undertaken with regard to the project.

The decision to proceed by Lanarkshire has been taken within their authority and following proper analysis. Accordingly, Scottish Enterprise does not consider it appropriate to intervene in this matter."

The letter finishes with an apology for the fact that

"the above information was not fully available at the time of my earlier letter."

I, too, apologise for the fact that the first letter from Scottish Enterprise to the hon. Lady was not fully informed. Earlier correspondence relating to Scottish Enterprise had made it clear that a displacement analysis had been carried out.

The proposed facility at Forrestburn is on a completely different scale from that at Knockhill. The Forrestburn circuit will be 3.2 miles long, which makes it as long as Silverstone and longer than Brands Hatch. It is well above the threshold for international racing events. The Knockhill circuit is only 1.3 miles long. I understand that the Forrestburn promoters intend to develop a circuit of international standards that would secure an FIA licence, which would allow events of international status to take place in Scotland.

I believe that the promoters of the Forrestburn facility will seek to attract such events as the British formula 2 and 3 championships, the German touring car championship and the FIA formula 3000 international championships. The hon. Lady will note that I have left out the formula 1 championship. I understand that it has not been included in the promoters' proposals; I suspect that they are being realistic about what they can achieve.

None of the events that I have mentioned is the kind that Knockhill would be able to attract. On that basis, it seems that the two facilities are considering essentially different markets, and accordingly the development of Forrestburn is unlikely to have an adverse impact on Knockhill. Indeed, the Forrestburn track is expected to bring new opportunities for co-operation with—for example—Knockhill through championships and back-to-back events. One of the wider attractions of Forrestburn is its potential to generate further interest in motor sport at an international level, and thus to expand the overall market, in which Knockhill will continue to play an important part.

As I have said, the Forrestburn project has secured funding from Monklands district council, the Lanarkshire development agency and the European regional development fund, but it would be wrong to describe it as a public sector project. The vast bulk of the finance is coming from the private sector; the public agencies are very much in a minority supporting role.

I understand—this will interest the hon. Lady—that the Forrestburn project has secured the support of the RAC Motor Sports Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. Both bodies have emphasised the importance of Knockhill in Scottish motor sport, and clearly do not regard Forrestburn and Knockhill as competing facilities.

I understand the hon. Lady's reservations, expressed today and in letters that she has written. I am no expert on motor sport, and I suspect that the same applies to the hon. Lady, but I suggest that the RAC Motor Sports Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club are experts. I urge the hon. Lady to seek an early meeting with those organisations, and to try to understand why they consider the two projects complementary rather than adversarial.

I shall take the Minister's advice, and seek meetings with those two organisations. I am, indeed, no expert on motor racing, although I share my London flat with a woman formula 3 racing driver, which gives me a certain insight into the subject.

I was not claiming that no displacement analysis had been carried out; my point is that that analysis has not been as detailed and thorough as it should have been, and has not involved all the interested parties sufficiently.

I understand that Knockhill involves formula 3 racing. I know that a longer track is being promoted at Forrestburn, but I gather that shorter tracks have distinct advantages, in that they allow spectators to see far more: the cars come round even faster.

I am pleased to learn that the hon. Lady shares a London flat with a young lady who is involved in formula 3 racing. Some claim that I can remember being a member of Bristol university's motor club and winning a rally. Perhaps I was wrong to say that I knew little about motor sport, but I must confess that I am a little rusty.

The hon. Lady asked whether a full displacement analysis had been carried out. That is a matter for the funding bodies—and Strathclyde European partnership, the tourism advisory group, the Lanarkshire development agency and Scottish Enterprise are indeed satisfied that the displacement issue has been dealt with adequately.

People in Fife are bound to disapprove of the project until they see that it will increase the inflow of motor sport into Scotland to their possible benefit. It might be helpful, however, if the proprietor of Knockhill talked to the project team at Forrestburn. I cannot bring that about; I can only urge the hon. Lady to suggest that Mr. Butcher in Knockhill try to establish contact. When the project is completed—if it is completed—there may well be a working relationship allowing discussion. If, as I am assured, the two facilities will not be in competition, let us ensure that the relationship is established on an informal basis at a fairly early stage. That could allay some fears. I suggest, however, that the hon. Lady contact the two bodies that I mentioned earlier.

Other than Knockhill, Great Britain has no proper motor sports venue further north than Oulton park in Cheshire. Given the potential catchment area of Scotland and much of the north of England, there is no reason why the motor sports market should not be able to support more than one circuit. That was certainly the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when Scotland had a number of successful circuits—for example, at Charterhall, Turnberry and Crail.

Given the resurgence of interest in motor sports—encouraged by the success of David Coulthard—I believe that it is a growing business. I consider that the question of displacement has been properly investigated by the bodies concerned, and I see no justification for Government intervention.