| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): Hear, hear.
Mr. Amess: Some hon. Members say, "Hear, hear," so there is some support for that view. But I found it deeply offensive and I believe that many of our fellow citizens found that statement deeply offensive.
If I were asked what is wrong with society at the moment, I would say that it was the deep arrogance that
humanity is everything and that there is no powerful force that we should consider. I am not bothered what religion anyone is. Christianity is what I care about and I wish to see all our churches supported. I certainly want to see religious instruction given in our schools.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. Before the debate continues, I have noticed what one might call a running commentary from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. I taken due note of those who have, so to speak, informally spoken already.
Mr. Amess:
The source of the running commentary is surprising. I hate to harm the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), but he promised me recently that he would be nice to me. He has broken his promise before Lent has duly finished.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury):
I have had an opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is our education spokesman, since that report appeared in the paper, because I was myself concerned about it. It is true that everybody in the Liberal Democrat party believes that religious education should continue in schools, and it is clear from my discussion with my hon. Friend that he did not say that in an ideal situation there should be no religious education. Indeed, he believes that religious education is an important part of the education of all our children.
Mr. Amess:
I entirely accept that.
Mr. Alton:
For the sake of the record, it is right for me to point out precisely what was said. It was reported in The Independent newspaper some weeks ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that, in an ideal world there would be no more religious schools, which theoretically would close all Anglican, Catholic, Jewish and nonconformist schools. He also said that daily acts of worship would be ended in that ideal world. I share the view of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) that that would be a deplorable development if that so-called ideal world, which I would regard as a nightmare world, were ever to occur.
Mr. Amess:
This has been an interesting opportunity to explore what the policy is on religious education. I support religious education in all our schools. As this is the Easter Adjournment debate and no doubt the whole of United Kingdom will be rejoicing and eating their Easter eggs, I would have thought that religious education was especially important at this time.
10.34 am
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) very far, but I do join him in offering congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett). His maiden speech was refreshing and we all enjoyed it. It showed good humour and it had all the ingredients. First, he paid a warm tribute--with which I know the whole House will agree--to his predecessor, Derek Enright. Secondly, he gave us an interesting reminder of the changes in his constituency and, finally--and crucially for a maiden speech--he made an important political point about the poverty wages that are paid in his area. I am sure that the whole House will look forward to him speaking many more times and giving us the same enjoyment.
I wish to raise two issues, which can both be summed up with initials--VOCs and SK5. The first is a national issue--I have given notice to the Leader of the House that I will raise it--and the other is a local constituency issue. The question of VOCs, or volatile organic compounds, is extremely important to all of us. Very few people understand VOCs, yet they affect all of us and the air we breathe. They are important not just when we are out in the street, but in the workplace and in homes. VOCs can be highly toxic and some of them are known to cause cancers. They are part of very complicated photochemical reactions which produce a photochemical smog that can aggravate conditions such as asthma and also cause headaches and nausea in some people.
The Environment Select Committee, of which I am the Chairman, produced a report 12 months ago. I wish to find out today what progress the Government are making in controlling air quality, because that is extremely important. As long ago as 1988, we signed up to the United Nations environment programme convention on long-range, trans-boundary air pollution. Under that convention, we were supposed to produce a 30 per cent. reduction in emissions by 1999, compared with 1988. It is important that the Government tell us exactly what they intend to do about meeting those targets.
In their response to the Environment Select Committee, the Government suggested that they would make good progress. We certainly got the impression that in several areas they would try to reach that 30 per cent. reduction target before the actual treaty requirement occurred. But the need for a reduction is here, now. Last summer, we had a series of incidents in which air quality was extremely bad in our cities. It is no good delaying reaching the target until the last minute. We should aim to reach it quickly.
The Government have done a little bit to produce a tax differential on premium unleaded petrol, but they could do much more. They are not doing enough about the emissions from industrial processes. I hope that the Minister will give us an update on how far and how soon the Government will achieve those targets.
I suggest that installing the proper equipment in industrial premises to recover VOCs, which would otherwise escape to the air, is not just good for our health but good for our industry. On several occasions recently, the Secretary of State for the Environment has talked about opportunities for environmental protection industries. It has been pointed out that others, especially the Germans, have scooped up the environmental industrial market because they have been at the forefront of attempts to achieve targets for environmental improvements. As a result, their industries develop the skills and take the opportunities to produce the equipment. If we are not careful in Britain, we will fall behind.
I want to put pressure on the Government for a clear update on meeting target emissions of volatile organic compounds in the short term, to ensure that we do not suffer too many bad-quality air episodes this summer--and in the long term, to meet agreed requirements.
When will the Government's air strategy policy be published? That was due to be appear last year, but I understand that it will be June at the earliest before it is produced. We await also the Government's response to
the royal commission on transport, and particularly to its recommendation to reduce the number of cars on our roads and emissions, if VOCs are to be significantly reduced. Also, what is the position on VOC emissions in buildings?
My second subject concerns the way that postcodes affect my constituents. The Government may argue that postcodes are a matter for the Post Office, not Parliament--but I suggest that they have wide implications. I am particularly concerned about a new housing estate, Fairways, in north Reddish, but the problem also exists on the Droylesden-Audenshaw border and between those parts of my constituency that are in Denton and Reddish.
The Post Office claims that postcodes exist only to facilitate postal deliveries. If that were so, I would not mind. I have sympathised in the past when the Post Office complained that insurance companies and others have misused postcodes, in determining premiums. The situation is changing rapidly, because the Post Office is busily selling postcodes to all sorts of people.
The Post Office claims that it is selling postcodes so that companies can get delivery addresses right, but the Post Office knows that many purchasers of postcodes use them for other purposes. Under the Data Protection Act 1988, one has the right to correct a computerised entry with which one disagrees. Provided that the Post Offices uses its record of an address for the sole purpose of postal deliveries, it does not have to do anything--but as soon as the Post Office sells that information for any other purpose, an individual should have the right to record that he disagrees with that information.
The problem is particularly acute when an address is used by not just the Post Office but others, which can be particularly well demonstrated in north Reddish, where residents may live in Stockport but have a Manchester M19 postcode. In addition, the Post Office is insisting that their address should include the words, "Levershulme, Manchester". Those residents do not live in Levershulme, Manchester, but that requirement affects their insurance premiums. Also, anyone driving from Stockport to a house in Levershulme will come to the Manchester boundary, then start looking for the street name in question.
If the Post Office continues to insist on a Manchester postcode, it should at least accept that residents of the Fairways estate, for example, are entitled to show their address as "North Reddish, Stockport, Manchester M19"--and the rest of the postcode. As long as the Post Office denies those residents the right to identify their addresses as being in Reddish or Stockport, the Post Office is insisting on the use of a misleading address, causing confusion for people trying to find houses or provide services.
The Post Office is causing unnecessary hardship to such residents by selling their postcodes to all sorts of organisations, which then insist that they know the correct address and that the individual resident does not know where he or she lives.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |