House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Dec 1996 (pt 1)

Hansard

House of Commons

Wednesday 18 December 1996

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Pairing Arrangements

9.34 am

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although you are concerned with the reputation of the House, you are obviously not responsible in any way, any more than your predecessors were, for pairing arrangements. Would you, however, consider it part of your duty to say that the way in which parties organise themselves, and make arrangements accordingly, reflects on the House's reputation?

It is now quite clear that the Government party cheated outright on Monday by pairing the same names with both the main Opposition party and the Liberal Democrat party, which is certainly unsatisfactory. It is deplorable that such cheating occurred. I hope that, since the Government are a minority Administration, they will behave somewhat differently in the new year.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to put words into my mouth. As he and the entire House know, the arrangements that political parties come to in this House are not at all the business of the Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): On a further point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, on this the last day before the Christmas recess, the Government sometimes make a statement. Have you had any indication, either through the usual business channels or whatever, that the Government will make a statement on pairing arrangements?

My point of order is a little different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) since I do not believe in the pairing system. I regard it as organised truancy. Frankly, I am pleased that the rest of my colleagues have been relieved from the pairing nonsense. I hope that, from now on, to the day of this Tory Government's demise, there will be no pairing. When we get into power, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) becomes Prime Minister and puts up the pink curtains in No. 10 Downing street, I hope that there will be no pairing, and we will drive through our legislation--new and old Labour.

Madam Speaker: I wonder whether that was really a point of order or just an expression of opinion. I think that the hon. Gentleman asked whether a statement would be made. He will have to wait and see.

18 Dec 1996 : Column 864

Adjournment (Christmas)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Conway.]

9.36 am

Mr. David Porter (Waveney): Before we go into the Christmas recess, I should like to raise some points about the economy and my constituency. Like many of our coastal communities and their rural hinterlands, Waveney's unemployment and some infrastructural obstacles remain stubbornly high. In Waveney, there is not the same relative prosperity, per capita income or inward investment that there is in most of East Anglia.

I have taken the view ever since I was elected that I should make a judgment on each issue before the House in the light of how my constituents will be affected. I am one of the happy minority of Members who represents the area where he was born and brought up. When I have decided not to support the Government--on Europe, fisheries, or health matters, for instance--I have done so with the best intentions of serving my constituents.

Many years ago, I first became convinced as a teenager of the Conservative philosophy of freedom of choice, free enterprise, freedom to spend more of one's own money and freedom from state control. Through my childhood I watched my parents working day and night to establish a small business in a shop over which we lived. I was in the sixth form during the 1964 general election campaign, when I saw two prominent Labour party Front Benchers, Fred Peart and George Brown, swan in and treat Lowestoft to a display of hypocrisy, contempt and arrogance that sickened me.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): They still won the election.

Mr. Porter: Indeed they did, but that was old Labour. Since then, it has repackaged its image. The Conservative party has repackaged its image too, to some extent--freedom of choice has become an opportunity for all. That same basic gut feeling about offering opportunity made it possible for me, from an ordinary background, to become a Conservative Member of Parliament and speak for Waveney, as I am doing quite unashamedly in this speech.

We live in a world in which we have to accept regulation and control, where freedom exists under the law, and where responsibilities run alongside freedom of choice. It is a fact of life that sometimes the market needs stimulating, realigning and fine-tuning in the public interest, just as privatised industries need regulators.

I say all that by way of preamble, because I wish to praise the Government for listening to some of the representations that I and others, of all parties and none, have made about the need to inject public money in a structured and targeted way into parts of my constituency.

We have missed out on assisted area status each time so far. Great Yarmouth, up the road, has it, and there is no doubt that that fact has the potential to suck many jobs out of Waveney and into Great Yarmouth. However, we have objective 5b status, and from that some money is beginning to flow into a variety of projects.

This week we have had not merely an injection but a transfusion of money and targeted support. The Kirkley regeneration initiative, Lowestoft, has been successful

18 Dec 1996 : Column 865

under round 3 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. That is a seven-year scheme in an area rated as the second most deprived in Suffolk, which suffers from high unemployment and from social, environmental and crime problems. Incidentally, both Benjamin Britten and I were born there.

The scheme aims to support business and to introduce crime prevention measures, infrastructure improvements, health measures, drug and alcohol counselling, training for the unemployed, housing improvements and an expansion of tourism. The council failed last year with a bid for industry-led regeneration, and it has built on advice from the Government office for the eastern region--an excellent support body.

Over the full seven years, the scheme should receive £4.2 million in support from the challenge fund. That money, complemented by nearly £22 million of private sector funding and other public money, should create 100 jobs, support 75 business start-ups, fund 50,000 weeks of training, help 875 people obtain qualifications and 125 people obtain jobs, provide 10,000 sq m of new business and commercial floor space, and improve or build 400 homes.

Kirkley, which is in south Lowestoft, is an area of enormous potential, with the best beach in Britain. The news is good, by any standards. As required under the rules of the challenge, Waveney district council led the bid. What puzzles me is why the controlling Labour party on the council should be happy that the Government have accepted that deserving case, yet still threatens to do away with such competitive bidding. I do not understand why Labour wants to stop ensuring that public money goes where it will be well spent and is most needed. That is new Labour with its old roots showing.

In the rest of the county, Suffolk Prosper, another seven-year project, is to receive more than £750,000, yet still Labour would remove that targeted money and the competitive edge. Labour wants to stop keeping local authorities on their toes in that way.

We are also to receive almost £3.2 million for the final 1-km phase of the Lowestoft northern spine road, which will promote economic development and alleviate traffic problems, and which includes the provision of a major cycle track. In addition, under the local transport capital expenditure we shall receive £150,000 for a package to assist public transport, make pedestrian route improvements and encourage more cycling.

There are still major problems caused by the axing of the trunk roads programme before the A12 had been properly dualled from London to Great Yarmouth. The third crossing at Lowestoft is the one project that would best link all the other schemes and plans, all the hopes and aspirations of businesses and individuals. I have not given up on that, and I shall see my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads about it yet again next month.