House Of Commons
Monday 9 July 1990
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
Prayers
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers To Questions
Transport
Midland Line
1.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet representatives of local authorities and others regarding midland line electrification; and if he will make a statement.
I am meeting representatives of Northamptonshire county council shortly to discuss the report which the local authorities have commissioned on electrification of the midland main line. It is for British Rail to consider whether there is a commercial case for electrification, and I hope that the local authorities will discuss their plans with British Rail.
Is the Minister aware that nearly every local authority in the east midlands—Labour and Tory—agrees with the midland line electrification programme? They have been demanding it for years—for the whole time that the Government have been in power. They cannot understand why, when more passengers are using the line, it has occasionally been under threat and why the Government cannot provide the local authorities with a morale boost by giving money to British Rail to get the job done. Why are the Government so concerned about roads? Is it because the road lobby companies line the pockets of the Tory party?
I am well aware that there is considerable support among the local authorities affected by the midland line electrification. The Government welcome sensible electrification proposals on both this line and others.
Give them the money then.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would not be sensible for the Government to spend taxpayers' money unless there were a sound commercial case for electrification. There are two facts that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the local authorities will bear in mind. First, the rolling stock on the line has another 10 years of useful life. I am sure that, when the rolling stock has to be replaced, British Rail will look carefully at the future of the line. Secondly, straightening the line to increase the average speed of trains could be more productive than electrification.
When my hon. Friend meets his local authority colleagues in Northamptonshire, will he also consider the freight operations on the midland line? Many of us are anxious that the channel tunnel should help all areas in the midlands and the north. Therefore, it is essential to have freight depots in the right place. I know that that is very much a matter for the Minister. I hope that he will consider it in the near future.
British Rail will shortly be deciding where to locate the terminals for collecting freight for onward shipment through the channel tunnel. It is to announce the location of the terminals during the next six months. Before the end of the year its plans will be fully unfurled. Electrification of the line is not relevant to freight services through the channel tunnel. Freight can and will be collected at various terminals and, if necessary, assembled for forwarding on through-trains in London. However, I understand the significance of freight to the railway industry so that it can capitalise on the channel tunnel.
Is the Minister aware that York is 50 miles north of Sheffield and that trains get there faster from London and that Leeds is 35 miles north of Sheffield and that trains from London get there in the same journey time? How on earth does he expect business men to invest in coalfields and steelworks areas and in places of high unemployment in the north midlands when it takes an hour to travel 35 miles to Manchester because there is no InterCity service? Railway connections throughout the area are backward and should have been updated many years ago.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the electrification of the east coast main line, and that is an excellent service. British Rail has plans, yet to be submitted to the Government, for improving speeds on the west coast main line. We welcome those forward-looking plans. As for the midland main line, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Electrification will not significantly increase running speeds. Widening bridges and straightening the curves on the midland main line would do more than electrification for average speeds.
Dartford-Thurrock Crossing
2.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the new Dartford-Thurrock crossing will be opened.
Construction of the new Dartford to Thurrock bridge is progressing well. The main pier pylons were erected at the end of last month. The project is on target for completion by summer 1991.
My constituents and those in north-west Kent will warmly welcome the prospects of the speeding up of the crossing by the M25 of the River Thames and of getting rid of the immense traffic congestion that we suffer in that part of the world. But can my right hon. Friend assure us that the infrastructure of roads feeding up to the bridge will be up to the job?
Yes. Part of the plan is to turn the approach roads to the tunnel and the bridge into dualled four-lane roads, so there will be four lanes going north and four travelling south.
For the benefit of hon. Members who represent constituences on each side of the bridge, and given the critical importance of the crossing not just for personal use but for international freight, can my right hon. Friend confirm whether the contractors would be subject to financial penalties were they to finish late?
The big incentive that the contractors have is that their concession runs for only 20 years, and if they are late in completing the project, they will be late in starting to collect the revenue. That means that they have a real financial incentive to complete the bridge on time.
A69, Northumberland
4.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to dual the A69 west of Hexham; and if he will make a statement.
There are no plans to dual the A69 west of Hexham. The Brampton bypass, now under construction in Cumbria, is to be a single carriageway. This will also be the case for the improvement at Haltwhistle in Northumberland.
Traffic flows west of Hexham are relatively light and even with the new traffic forecasts, which look well ahead, any significant dualling is unlikely to be justified.Will my right hon. Friend note that everybody in the north-east is extremely grateful for his decision to upgrade the A1 to a motorway as far as Newcastle, but that that means that in future years the A69 will fall between two major motorways—the new A1 and the M6—which will increase flows on that road? In the light of the excellent news that my right hon. Friend announced last week, may I ask him to give us some more good news as soon as possible?
Yes. We will monitor developments on the A69 after the A1 to Newcastle has been turned into a motorway, but, as my hon. Friend knows, traffic flows west of Hexham are very light indeed by comparison with those east of Hexham. That is why the road is dualled as far as Hexham but not beyond. Nevertheless, we shall look at the matter very carefully.
Motorways (Spray)
6.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take fresh initiatives to reduce the lateral spray caused by heavy goods vehicles on motorways in adverse weather conditions.
Since 1985, all United Kingdom heavy goods vehicles have been required to have anti-spray devices fitted. These are the most stringent requirements in Europe and we are keen to see the rest of Europe come up to our standard.
I thank the Minister for that reply and I share his wish that the requirements should be stringent. But has he had the experience that I have had when driving up the M4? Has he found that there is a massive variation in the amount of spray produced by different heavy goods vehicles, some of which produce little lateral spray while others produce an enormous and dangerous amount? Does not that suggest that we need greater controls—either through regulations or through their enforcement—to minimise the considerable danger to motorists that is caused when their vision is obscured in this way?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether he was referring to different amounts of spray being produced on the same sort of day, as the amount of spray can depend on the wind. I often drive up the M1 and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I suffer from exactly the same experience. That is why the Government are keen to see our requirements matched by the rest of Europe and why we are pursuing the matter with urgency.
Is not most of the lateral spray caused by buses, and is not it time that we prevented buses from travelling in the fast lane of motorways?
I do not know the exact answer to that, although my experience is that given the right conditions, lorries and buses both cause tremendous amounts of spray. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that we are keen to ensure that all vehicles are fitted with anti-spray devices as quickly as possible.
Road Safety
7.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve road safety for children.
A wide range of measures to improve road safety have been taken under the umbrella of our "Safety on the Move" campaign. Britain has a good record on road safety. An area of great concern is that of child safety, especially child pedestrians, where there is particular scope for improvement. A sustained programme of measures on child safety was launched in May, including proposals to enable local authorities to make residential streets safer. We will be launching a further phase of that campaign concentrating on child pedestrian safety shortly.
Are not my hon. Friend and his Department to be congratulated on the recent initiative, particularly in view of its co-ordinating measures? In pursuing that, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the great importance of using parent-teacher associations in schools to promote road safety? They marry the interests of parents in looking after children and the interests of schools. Those are the two principal ways of promoting road safety for children and those avenues have been well explored and used in my constituency. Parent-teacher associations can make a most important contribution. Will my hon. Friend ensure that they are included as the programme evolves?
In any campaign of this kind, we must do as much as we can to draw to the attention of PTAs, parents and everyone involved in supervising children the importance of ensuring that children are fully aware of the dangers that they can face on our roads. Those accidents can be prevented and I know that all hon. Members would want to see as much as possible done on that subject.
Is the Minister aware that although "Children crossing" signs are much in evidence, in many such areas local authorities still allow 40 mph speed limits? Will he recommend to local authorities that that limit should be reduced to 30 mph?
A number of initiatives that were outlined earlier will do much to meet the hon. Gentleman's requirement. However, perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the reduction of speed to wipe out those accidents. A number of factors lead to those accidents and we must ensure that people are more aware of the dangers on our roads. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
Is my hon. Friend aware that children have been among the victims of drunken driving? Is he aware also that recent press reports have suggested that he is considering whether different levels of alcohol in the blood should be considered, depending on the age of the driver? That would be a very bad thing to introduce because it would give the impression that drunken driving at one age is more or less dangerous than drunken driving at another. Clearly the same level of alcohol should be considered whatever the age of the driver.
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments and he referred to ideas that are out for consultation at the moment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, drinking and driving accounts for 900 deaths a year on our roads. It is the biggest single cause of road accidents and anything that can be done to make people more aware of the danger in which they put others when they drink and drive can only be helpful.
Does the Minister agree that many of his proposals place an onus on local authorities to take more action? Bearing in mind that many of those initiatives, which are admirable in their way, will cost a great deal of money, the present restrictions on local authorities mean that unless more money is made available, the carnage and injury to our children will continue. It is important that when highlighting, quite rightly, what is happening with children and road safety—and the report is clear about that—money is made available to the local authorities. At the moment they are under such severe restrictions that many of them are saying that they cannot implement many of the recommendations.
It is perhaps not surprising that the Labour party has brought into play the question of money for local authorities. Those of us with extreme local authorities could point to several ways in which they could make savings and divert their money to areas where it could be used better and more effectively. It is not just the local authorities which should take the lead in this matter; parents and all those involved in educating children should also play a part. I totally and absolutely reject the idea that local authorities are short of money for that vital provision. However, it is not surprising to hear that claim from the Opposition.
British Rail
8.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss plans for denationalisation.
My right hon. Friend will discuss privatisation, when appropriate at his regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail.
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate the frustration in great railway cities such as York which have seen the denationalisation of Sealink, Travellers Fare on-station catering, and British Rail Engineering Ltd., but not of the core business of British Rail? Would not it be more productive and better for those who actually use rail services if he were to call for denationalisation plans? That could be an opportunity for those who work in that great industry to have a share in its success, which my hon. Friend is frustrating at present.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to achieve a better deal for the consumer—the passenger on British Rail. Therefore, the recent reorganisation plans that were announced by British Rail and which are based on the business sectors of British Rail—freight, international, InterCity, provincial and Network SouthEast—are to be welcomed because they focus management's effort and attention on improving the service that is available to consumers. That reorganisation is not inconsistent with privatisation, but that is not a matter for this Parliament.
Will the Minister explain to his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that the chairman of British Rail recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Transport that, although the financial targets that had been set by the Government were being met, there was no question of the quality of service being met? That has a great deal more to do with the comfort of passengers than all the nonsense that is talked about trying to sell off an unprofitable business.
There is no prospect in this Parliament of any proposals for denationalising British railways. I was not present to hear the evidence that was given by Sir Bob Reid, but I assure the hon. Lady that the financial target that was set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the quality targets are achievable by British Rail. I shall shortly be having a meeting with the chairman of British Rail and the chairman of London Regional Transport to monitor what progress has been made on those quality objectives and to work with those two undertakings to make sure that they are achieved.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that if Japan, America, France and Germany find a need to subsidise railways as a public service, it cannot be a sound policy to keep on pushing up InterCity and commuter fares in the vain hope of selling off something which, if it is to be profitable, will leave us with three private lines? Will the Minister accept that railways are a necessary part of the infrastructure of this country and that spending £600 million on the A1 is not as important as spending £600 million on railways?
My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that, over the next three years, road investment in this country, paid for by the taxpayer, will be about £6 billion and investment in rail schemes by British Rail and London Regional Transport will also be £6 billion. A significant proportion of that railway investment will be paid by the public sector, either in subsidy for Network SouthEast or provincial railways, or by borrowing from the national loans fund. We have the proportion of investment in roads and railways right. If my hon. Friend looks at the experience of Germany and France, he will see that there are pressures there to reduce the losses and the subsidies that they are suffering and that they wish to emulate British Rail and the experience of this public sector.
Are the Minister and the Secretary of State aware of the conclusion of two recent reports by the European Commission and the chartered accountants' institute that British Rail is seriously disadvantaged in being prevented from raising private capital to finance a high-speed rail link, as in France and Germany, simply because of Treasury rules and the financial targets that have been imposed on British Rail by all Governments? Will he press for changes so that a publicly owned British Rail can raise private capital on its own to finance a new high-speed rail link this century rather than next century?
I must first correct the hon. Gentleman—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales did not produce that report. The body that produced the report is not part of the institute—I happen to know that because I belong to it. The Hundred Group of chartered accountants is not part of the profession.
Did the Minister read the report?
Yes, I did. I not only participated in the production of the 1981 report, but carefully read the 1989 update.
On the point about borrowing from the private sector for railway investment, of course, British Rail wants to use private sector finance. That was what the proposal that was put to us about the channel tunnel high-speed rail link was all about. The proposal did not work, because the balance was not right—[Interruption.] Well, I can advise the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that there is no shortage of capital in this country and no shortage of railway investment schemes in which people can invest. The problem is to find viable schemes that will ensure the repayment of that capital. The hon. Gentleman talks about raising £15 billion for a high-speed rail link—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, £15 billion for a high-speed rail link from Folkestone to Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman will find that that scheme is not and will not be viable. He is assuming that money is available for projects that are not viable and where the money cannot be repaid.I understand that there is an agreement to take question No. 9 at the end. We therefore move to question No. 10.
Hm Coastguard
10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons were directly assisted in 1989–90 by Her Majesty's Coastguard's civil maritime search and rescue service.
Provisional figures for 1989 show that from 6,837 incidents co-ordinated by the coastguards, more than 11,500 persons were assisted by a combination of Coastguard helicopters, vehicles and rescue equipment; Ministry of Defence helicopters, Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats and other vessels.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Solent is the busiest coastal area in the United Kingdom? Will he add his tribute to mine to the coastguards for their excellent work in looking after our seafarers—both professional and amateur—365 days a year, and especially during the round the island race, which is probably the world's largest yacht race? Will he confirm that there will be no reduction in the provision of military search and rescue helicopters following the defence debate? Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the comments of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties which condemned the manpower levels of the Coastguard service, when this Government have provided so much investment in new equipment and technology to ensure that our coastguards are the best in the world?
My hon. Friend is correct that the Solent is the busiest part of our coast. There were 851 incidents in that area in 1989, in which more than 1,600 persons were assisted. That was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year. There are carefully laid down criteria for the helicopter cover that is required along our coastline. No reduction in that will be contemplated and any necessary changes will be made. My hon. Friend is also right to note that although the Opposition constantly tell us about all the cuts, we have, in fact, increased expenditure on the Coastguard service substantially. Compared with the 1983 figure, expenditure has now doubled to £28 million. The coastguards provide an excellent service. As we are approaching the time when most people take their holidays, it is perhaps worth reminding everyone that it is up to each person to take the proper precautions when at the coast.
All of us who represent maritime constitutencies very much appreciate the work of the Coastguard service. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there will be adequate night cover, following the removal of helicopters from night duty at Leuchars and Fife, which are so important for air-sea rescue searches?
As I said earlier, we are satisfied that there is sufficient helicopter cover around our coastline. However, I shall certainly investigate the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised and write to her about it.
I commend the fantastic work carried out by the coastguards around our coastal waters, but will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still much room for improvement in the general public's understanding of the different sectors that offer search and rescue facilities? We have a tripartite organisational problem with the RNLI, the coastguards and other organisations that provide search and rescue cover. Will my hon. Friend assure me that once the new committee that he has endorsed—a local advisory body to help with the north Devon coastline—has proved its worth, he will replicate it throughout the United Kingdom so that all our coastlines will have a local group that can question and learn from local search and rescue services?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She rightly refers to an idea that she sponsored and which has been taken on board. I shall look closely at the results arrived at by the consultation body. If I find that the idea is worth while I shall consider expanding it to the rest of the United Kingdom.
In the light of the figures that the Minister has given and the Prime Minister's recent high-profile excursion in a lifeboat, will the Minister tell the House just how many Coastguard stations he has closed? Is not he worried about the closure of the Hartland Coastguard station? Can he confirm that the bridging loans made available to members of staff who were relocated totalled about £200,000, and that for that sum it would have been possible to keep that important Coastguard station open?
The number of incidents in the area round the Hartland Coastguard station has declined since the station was closed. I stand by the fact that we have doubled expenditure on the Coastguard service from £14 million in 1983 to approximately £28 million and that the service is currently involved in a four-year programme to modernise its communications and provide computerised data handling equipment. If the Opposition believe that a Coastguard service can be maintained without giving it proper equipment with which to operate, the Government do not agree. The Government propose to give coastguards the right, modern, effective communications equipment that they need to carry out their jobs.
Leeds-London Rail Service
11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total investment in the electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service.
British Rail puts the total expenditure on electrification of the Leeds-London inter-city service at £164.4 million at 1989–90 prices.
Is my hon. Friend aware of the great success of electrification in improving customer service? Will he give sympathetic consideration this October to the application by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive to invest its own resources in electrifying the Leeds-Bradford railway, as well as the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, especially as the investment will produce a positive return above the 8 per cent. criterion required for such schemes?
I am aware that my hon. Friend is a strong supporter of that proposal, along with several other hon. Members on both sides of the House. I intend to visit the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive and authority in September. We shall give the matter careful consideration. I am glad to note that today British Rail has added an option clause to its agreement for the purchase of rolling stock for the Birmingham cross-city service. That will safeguard about 14 trains by under-option for possible use on the extra electrified line.
As the Minister's predecessor, in a meeting earlier this year, gave every impression of being extremely sympathetic to electrification of the Bradford-Leeds line, and as there are no doubts about its economic viability, will the Minister pull his finger out and approve the loan to the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority so that it can get on with the work? All sections of the community in Bradford have been pressing for the work to be done for the past six years.
The hon. Gentleman's language is colourful, but I understand the strength of his feeling. He will recall that my predecessor said that a decision would be made once the autumn statement settlement had been announced. I also give him that assurance. I am well aware that the West Yorkshire PTE is seeking only credit approval, not section 56 grant. The scheme appears to be viable, so I give the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members the assurance that the proposal will be considered at the appropriate time when we have the new public expenditure survey settlement.
As my hon. Friend was criticised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for investing too much in the A1, a much-needed transport link for the north and north-east, instead of investing in the railways, does my hon. Friend agree that the electrification of the east coast main line and the electrification scheme for the Leeds-Bradford line are two of 10 major schemes which amount to the largest-ever investment in British Rail?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that over the next three years British Rail investment will be 75 per cent. up in real terms on that for the past three years. London Regional Transport investment will be about double in real terms. There is a substantial increase in investment which is significantly financed by the public sector through grants and borrowings.
Will the Minister explain slowly, for the benefit of his more stupid and innumerate Back Benchers, that the £164 million for the electrification of the London-Leeds railway line is paid for almost exclusively by farepayers in almost the highest rail fares in Europe, while the £600 million for the upgrading of the A1 trunk road is paid for exclusively by taxpayers? As a colourful accountant, can the Minister explain that discrepancy in the Government's transport policy?
Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures. The £3.7 billion investment in British Rail over the next three years is financed in four ways: £0.2 billion comes from its cash flow, before depreciation; £1.6 billion comes from grants, not only from central Government, but from passenger transport executives—
You bet.
The hon. Gentleman says, "You bet", but only about £200 million of that £1.6 billion comes from local authorities. One billion pounds comes from loans and £0.9 billion comes from the sale of assets which belong to the taxpayer. I repeat that the vast majority of British Rail investment, which is the largest for 25 years and represents a 75 per cent. increase in real terms, comes from the public sector.
Fishing Vessels
12.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels.
We will review the criteria for the registration of fishing vessels should it become necessary when the outcome is known of the litigation covering part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 before the European Court of Justice.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the great concern among Cornish fishermen in particular, following the recent United Kingdom cheating on quota and, more specifically, the problems with the Spanish vessels. May I hope that the Government will resist any review and fight on behalf of those fishermen to protect the quota system? After all, it makes no sense to have a national quota system if quota-hopping is allowed.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Court of Justice decided that our courts could issue interim injunctions suspending an Act of Parliament. It did not decide that the courts had to do so. Therefore, the Government will argue before our courts that, although they have the discretion, they should not use it and we shall argue strongly the major case that our registration arrangements should be allowed under European law. We shall fight both cases hard.
Although I congratulate the Government on the way in which they are fighting these cases, both the short-term one in the House of Lords and the long-term one in the European Court of Justice, does my right hon. Friend accept that 31 of those former Spanish vessels are back on our register through what is widely regarded as a loophole in the present registration procedure—they appear to be financed through loans or mortgages from Spain? Will he look at that problem and give an assurance that the Government will do everything in their power to deal once and for all with the scourge of quota-hopping?
As my hon. Friend knows, originally more than 85 vessels applied for registration. Several have been registered, although I do not think that it is as many as 31. My figure is 26. Nevertheless, I shall look at the matter again. We are examining each case carefully and we are determined that only properly owned vessels should be allowed to appear on our register.
I see that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench. After the hearing that is taking place now in another place, may we have a statement from him about the judgment because it is of major interest both constitutionally and to our fishermen? Might one of the implications of the judgment be the end of national quotas and the allocation of quotas being determined in Brussels by European Commission officials?
We should look only at the two issues. The issue before the House of Lords is the narrow one of whether it wishes to use a power that the European Court of Justice says it has. The major case about our registration requirements has still to be heard and I understand that there will be no decision on that until the end of the year. The hearing in the House of Lords is about a technical matter, an interim measure, and I am advised that the full hearing will not take place until the end of the year.
Electronic Road Pricing
13.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to publish the preliminary studies being undertaken by his Department into the feasibility of introducing electronic road pricing in parts of the United Kingdom.
My Department is not currently undertaking such studies. We are, however, continuing to keep a close watch on the use of road pricing in other countries and on the development of the relevant technology.
As the cost to business of road congestion in and around London is about £15 billion a year, at the risk of being skinned alive by my constituents in Esher, may I ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider throwing a road-pricing ring round the old Greater London council boundary? We must overcome the problem of congestion in our capital city, and some of us must make the sacrifice. Technology appears to work in other countries, and it is worth bringing it in here.
I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend in which countries the technology works. As far as I know, Singapore is the only one. There are toll booths in Norway, but they are designed not for road pricing, but for revenue raising. They are not intended to discourage people from using roads. In recent weeks the Dutch, who had been leading the way, abandoned their experiment and the Swedes have voted—if I may coin a phrase—not to go down that road. Road pricing, although intellectually attractive, is incredibly complicated to implement, would be unfair and is not a readily available option.
Attorney-General
Pub Bombings
77.
To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings case with (a) Lord Lane and (b) Lord Donaldson.
Any discussion which I might have with the judiciary as a Law Officer would be confidential and not disclosed.
Is the Attorney-General aware that for some time a number of senior judges have been going round quietly saying that the Guildford Four and the Maguire family had their convictions quashed only on a technicality and were guilty all along? Does he agree that that brings the judicial process further into disrepute? It is about time that we had a resignation or two so that those gentleman can say out loud what they can say at the moment only in the privacy of their clubs.
The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no, Sir. The remainder of the question does not arise.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that nothing could be more deplorable than for the Crown's principal Law Officer to go round discussing with judges cases that may appear before the courts again? Is not it essential that there should be proper separation between the judicial and Executive functions, even those that exist for my right hon. and learned Friend? Will he ensure that he never speaks about any live case to any judge in his official capacity?
No, Sir. My responsibilities for controlling the administration of sectors of the criminal and civil law would, on occasion, make discussion with the judiciary appropriate.
Would not it be wrong for the Attorney-General to discuss matters of this controversial nature with the judges? Is not the right way to go about it—if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has views on it—to make a submission to the May inquiry, because it is equally clear that unless Ludovic Kennedy or my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) writes a book, the BBC makes a programme, and a police force holds an inquiry, some miscarriages of justice will not be put right? Is not it time the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave evidence to the inquiry?
No, Sir, I set up the inquiry with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I await Sir John May's report of the first phase with great interest. He has promised it as soon as possible.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have no proposals to discuss any such case with any of the judiciary. but—in response to a hypothetical question—I certainly do not propose to fetter the discretion that any holder of my office has, in the interests of the administration of justice, to do what he considers proper.Legal Aid
78.
To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for one lawyer to represent clients in criminal cases on legal aid.
On 19 June Standing Committee D, with Government support, added a new clause to the Courts and Legal Services Bill under which the Lord Chancellor would be unable to say that a defendant in criminal proceedings should have only one lawyer to represent him. The Government hope to be able to extend this provision to include cases in the High Court and the Court of Appeal when the House considers the Bill on Report.
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Consumers Association about this provision. I hope that he will influence the Committee to ensure that the public have a proper choice and that enough lawyers are available to represent defendants in court cases.
The Government have made it clear that there is no intention to use the power to fix fees under the legal aid scheme to require that any litigant shall be represented by only one legal representative. That will become clear when we reach Report stage.
Why is not the Attorney-General saying that this is a case of restrictive practices and overmanning and that the Government will weed out those elements? Instead, he says exactly the opposite. If it had been a trade union, the boot would have been on the other foot.
I shall not discuss with the hon. Gentleman where he puts his boot—[ Interruption.] It is generally in his mouth. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to his feet if one of his trade union members had not been permitted the legal representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the day had decided—[Interruption.] Just for once, will the hon. Gentleman listen to an answer so that others can hear it? Let us suppose that one of his trade union members had been denied the representative of his choice because the Lord Chancellor of the time—perhaps even a Conservative one—had decreed that he should have only one. I wonder what he would say then.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is nearly always necessary for there to be someone arranging for witnesses and trying to organise the times when they can come, and someone taking a note of the evidence? The Opposition would be the first to complain if they were involved in any sort of criminal trial that had to be delayed day after day merely because there was no one there to help the barrister on his feet.
I thought that I had expressed the same thought, perhaps rather less amply.
79.
To ask the Attorney-General when the application for legal aid by Mr. McCready, of 5 Botsham house, Newcomen street, London SE1 will be dealt with.
A number of regrettable errors in the handling of Mr. McCready's application for legal aid delayed considerably the issue of a certificate. But I am pleased to say that an unlimited legal aid certificate was issued on 28 June.
Does the Attorney-General agree that justice delayed is justice denied? Is the delay in this case—a delay, as he well knows, of more than a year—typical of the legal aid administration? Is he aware that solicitors are fed up with the delay and that many people just cannot get an answer? It is only because I have written to the Lord Chancellor about this case that there appears to be any movement at all.
No, it is regrettable but it is certainly not typical. The Legal Aid Board has already increased from 50 to 63 per cent. the number of legal aid applications that are processed within six weeks of receipt, and it has set itself tough targets for the immediate future.
Government Documents
80.
To ask the Attorney-General how many and what percentage of Government documents are lost each year (a) unaccountably, (b) as a result of fire or water damage, or (c) otherwise; and if he will make a statement.
No information is held centrally about this. To comply with their duties under the Public Records Act 1958, Departments are obliged to ensure that their documentary records are properly preserved.
Does the Attorney-General agree that the majority of documents which disappear, shall we say, do so because of Government secrecy? For example, does he know that only 5 per cent. of Department of Trade and Industry documents reach his office and that 90 per cent. are destroyed?
No. What the hon. Gentleman describes as the Government's policy of secrecy certainly does not lead to the loss of any documents. By framing his question in that way the hon. Gentleman has proceeded, by fire and water, to a rather expensive platform for denying justice to a Government who have so notably liberalised the Official Secrets Act, for example.
While on the subject of documents going astray, will the Attorney-General look into the question of the documents that appear to be going astray at the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers? It has been reported that there will be a private investigation at the NUM before the police are called in. As that did not apply to Guinness or Barlow Clowes why is it applying at the NUM?
I have no responsibility for what is taking place or what has taken place at the National Union of Mineworkers. I certainly do not wish to emulate its representative in the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), by straying into areas that are outside my responsibility.
Supreme Court Of Appeal
81.
To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his policy on the establishment of an independent Supreme Court of Appeal.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to change the present structure of the appellate courts.
The Attorney-General will be aware, as are most hon. Members, that the people who are in prison for the Birmingham bombings are probably or very likely innocent. He is in an embarrassing position because he does not know how to get those people out of gaol. Would not it be better to have a totally independent and further Court of Appeal, so that the incarceration of innocent people could be dealt with without giving rise to the embarrassment which the Government obviously feel at keeping those people in prison?
Without making any comment on the assertions with which the hon. Gentleman began his question, I must observe that any change of the sort that he envisages is a matter for the Lord Chancellor or, conceivably, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but not for me. Any judicial process depends upon the evidential material that is presented to it and upon the limits of its jurisdiction. The remit of Sir John May's inquiry is broad enough to consider whether it is desirable to change the way in which our courts deal with what are treated as appeals on referral from the Home Secretary. That is as far as I can take the matter at the moment.
Overseas Development
Peru
90.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send aid to Peru in respect of the recent earthquake and drought.
Following an appeal from the United Nations Secretary-General last month, we are making a bilateral contribution of $250,000 for immediate relief, channelled through the United Nations Disaster Relief Office which is co-ordinating donors' responses. This is on top of 0.120 million ecu, or £86,000, emergency assistance for earthquake victims, and 5.88 million ecu, or £4.2 million, of emergency food aid being provided from the European Community programme.
Will the Minister confirm reports that about 3.5 million of the poorest farmers in that part of the world have lost their crops as a result of this catastrophe? What are her Department's long-term plans for assisting such farmers, especially in preparation for next year's crop and thereafter?
I cannot yet confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave, but obviously we wait anxiously for news of what is going on. I think that he realises that Peru is a middle-income country and therefore has not figured largely in our aid programme, although we give help through technical co-operation and do much in terms of training, some of it in agriculture. When we know the position better, I can examine it again.
I emphasise that we seek to concentrate our bilateral aid funds on the Commonwealth and the poorest countries. Therefore, although we will be generous with emergency and relief aid, we feel that it is right to do that for the poorest countries, rather than for a country that has a per capita GNP of $1,440.What difficulties are being encountered in getting our emergency aid through to the areas that have suffered from the earthquakes, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of the newly elected Government of Peru in exercising their democratic mandate in those areas, owing to the activity of the Maoist terrorists of Sendero Luminoso?
We are well aware of the difficulties that Sendero Luminoso and other terrorists make for the Government in that country. I am not aware of specific difficulties in getting the aid through, but the new Government—under president-elect Fujimori—have a great deal to do, including sorting out a debt of $1.5 billion: those are substantial arrears.
Aids
91.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have now been made available by his Department to help combat the spread of AIDS in developing countries.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 18 June, which noted a number of financial commitments totalling £29.39 million. Since then a further £250,000 has been committed to support another national programme.
Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of reading an article in The Sunday Times of 1 July which outlined the effect of AIDS on African leaders, and the need to combat AIDS where there are such cultural traditions among the poor as farmers exchanging their wives and daughters for fertiliser? As the AIDS epidemic has such a serious effect on the tiny percentage of African leaders who have had a formal education, and now that aid agencies throughout the world are turning their attention to the eastern bloc countries, what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that Africa avoids that double jeopardy?
I have seen the article to which my hon. Friend referred. However willing we are—and we are very willing—to do more to try to curb the HIV epidemic, we can do nothing without the commitment of Heads of Government and people at every level of life in those countries. A much wider use of condoms is necessary everywhere. In countries that already have high levels of HIV, the spread is bound to be far greater than any that we may have anticipated some years ago. It is no good simply asking for fidelity; we must persuade people to take effective practical action.
What requests has the Minister received from African countries for resources to combat the spead of AIDS? Does she accept that the amount of money that she spoke about is minuscule, given the plague-like proportion of the spread of AIDS, especially in east Africa?
We are already helping Botswana, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire and Zimbabwe, and we are delighted to note the positive contribution being made in Zimbabwe by Dr. Stamp, the new Minister of Health, in increasing public awareness and action. It is not simply a question of money, although we have greatly increased the amounts that we are spending, and will continue to do so. We are also working with advisers in those countries to ensure that they get their programmes right and that their publicity is fearless in putting over to everyone just what a problem this is. It is not the supply of condoms that is a problem; it is getting people to use them.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that some figures show that 45 per cent. of the adult population in cities and towns is sub-Saharan Africa have AIDS? If that is the case, what discussions has she had with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary concerning health screening for people who come to Britain from those countries?
My responsibilities are not only to try to help to prevent the spread of AIDS but to educate, through our overseas aid programmes. The unique TASO project has started in Uganda—The Aids Support Organisation project—which is counselling people. That is the way forward. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is supporting action taken by my Department in those countries.
Natural History Museum
92.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his inquiries about the effect of the changes in the natural history museum on research work of importance to his Department.
I believe that the changes at the natural history museum should have no serious impact on the ODA's programmes, including our research work. The ODA's natural resources institute, which has close links with the museum and will continue to need its collaboration, will be keeping this matter under review. So will I.
After her welcome visit in September, when she will see some of the 25.5 million specimens in spirits, some collected by Captain Cook, will the right hon. Lady require of the museum that it makes no changes in curatorial arrangements, in the light of the many letters from throughout the world from experts concerned with global changes in climate and other such matters?
I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see that nothing irrevocable is done. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I between us will approach any changes that take place in the natural history museum in that spirit. It is important that the museum concentrates its efforts on the six scientific programmes that I shall be visiting in September. I was glad to talk to the associate director, Mr. Peake, abou this and about what it is aiming to do. As the museum accepts, it cannot do everything at all times. Therefore, we must get its research efforts concentrated on these vital issues.
Women (Adult Education)
93.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the overseas aid programme provides support for adult education for women in developing countries.
Yes, we provide such support in a variety of ways: as component parts of ODA projects, through in-country training and training on courses in British institutions, through distance learning, and in joint ventures with non-governmental organisations and in our contribution to the United Nations development fund for women, UNIFEM.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in too many parts of the world, opportunities for women are fewer because of their inadequate education? Therefore, the reason for adult education of women is that much stronger. Has the world conference on education for all, held in Thailand earlier this year, led to any advances, and can we support such projects?
The education for all conference in Thailand was valuable because it called on Governments to give a higher priority to basic education. That should enable us, and other donor Governments, to support adult literacy for women to a greater extent. We have to consider overseas Government priorities because without their support, we cannot proceed, and it is hard to persuade them to give full education to women in their teens, so that we do not have to catch up with adult education, which will be needed for the next 20 years.
Will the Minister give us the number and percentage of women participating in ODA training programmes in developing countries? Is she ready to encourage those Governments who are reluctant to nominate women to support a quota system so that 20 to 30 per cent. of awards from the ODA are allocated to women?
Like the hon. Lady, I want a higher proportion of women to come forward, and that is why I have been encouraging overseas Governments to nominate more women. Some 20 per cent. of the nominations for awards go to women, which is an improvement, and the number of women receiving training under the technical co-operation training programme is improving all the time.
I cannot give the hon. Lady the other figures without notice, as she well knows.Aviation And Maritime Security
The following question stood upon the Paper:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve maritime and aviation security.
3.35 pm
We are determined to continue to take whatever measures are necessary to improve maritime and aviation security. The Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will strengthen existing aviation security powers and introduce new powers in relation to maritime security.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I report on the investigation into the incident at Heathrow involving Dr. Jim Swire. A senior investigator from the aviation security inspectorate, who is a former superintendant in the Metropolitan police, has interviewed all those involved in the incident. Although there are differences in the detail of the incident as recalled by Dr. Swire and his travelling companion and by British Airways staff, the investigator's conclusions are, first, that it is beyond reasonable doubt that British Airways were aware that Dr. Swire and his travelling companion were relatives of Lockerbie victims when they bought their tickets, when they checked in, when their hold baggage was searched and when they were on the flight; and, secondly, that there are grounds for believing that British Airways staff, knowing who Dr. Swire was, were insufficiently stringent in checking the radio. I accept that, because British Airways staff knew exactly who Dr. Swire was, it was understandable that they should conclude that he was not planning to take an explosive device on board his flight. Nevertheless, I am asking my chief inspector of aviation security to write to all airports and airlines to emphasise that they must be especially careful in checking electrical items, irrespective of to whom they belong.I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy—indeed, heartfelt condolences—to Dr. Swire for the tragic loss of his daughter in the Lockerbie disaster. Although he may have been a little unwise to go as public as he did, and in such a dramatic way, about the results of his escapade, he may have done the travelling public a service by identifying a weak link in the security chain.
Is my right hon. Friend happy that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, now before Parliament, will give him all the powers that he needs to ensure that individual airlines and companies involved in services at airports can be kept in check? Are those powers strong enough for my right hon. Friend to ensure that the necessary security procedures are followed? Does he acknowledge that there is no such thing as 100 per cent. security?I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about Dr. Swire. I have met him on a number of occasions, and know that he is a genuine person who is desperately keen to ensure that aviation security is improved. The Bill will be useful when the House passes it, and I hope that there will be no more filibustering of the sort that we experienced 10 days ago. Not only will the Bill give me the power to give directions to a wider range of people; it will also give me the power to enforce them— including taking such action if necessary as, for example, closing airports, grounding airlines or putting directions on others who serve aircraft and airports. The Bill will be useful and it will provide the necessary additional powers.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right to say that it is virtually impossible to guarantee 100 per cent. security. However, that is no reason why we should not use every possible method open to us to reduce the risks.Does not the Secretary of State realise that his explanation is both singularly silly and singularly worrying? Is he seriously suggesting that we should accept that, if someone is known to the authorities, that means that they are safe? Could not a device be planted on such a person on just that premise? Does he accept—I am sure that he does, privately—that we are in no way reassured by what we have heard today and that we hope that there will be much more stringent action in future?
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been following events, or he would not have made that remark. First, Dr. Swire admits that he was one of the percentage of passengers selected. He was taken, his luggage was searched, and the radio was found. Dr. Swire admitted that he packed his bag himself. Those are his words, not mine. The individual making the investigation realised who Dr. Swire was, and she is, as I said, open to criticism for not taking such stringent measures as she might otherwise have done. However, she saw the suitcase and the radio, and Dr. Swire confirmed that he had packed the case—so there was no question of Dr. Swire having been duped.
As one of the Members of Parliament who represents part of Heathrow airport, I ask my right hon. Friend to clear up some confusion, for the sake of those of my constituents who undertake airport checks. Will he confirm that there was not a failure to detect a real bomb, and that Dr. Swire's action was not part of a genuine suicide attempt, for which staff are trained to be on the look-out? Will my right hon. Friend confirm also that the luggage in question was not unaccompanied, which is very different from the Lockerbie situation? Given that my constituents have an unenviable job to do, does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who seek to score cheap party points over such an issue should tell my constituents whether or not they should show humanity and compassion towards an individual who so tragically lost a daughter?
Yes, I will confirm that there was not a failure. The plane involved was one of a number selected at random each week for investigation. Ten per cent. of all hold baggage on those flights is checked. In this instance, the luggage was checked, questions were asked, and the radio was found. The young woman concerned, knowing the identity of the person carrying the radio, took the view that Dr. Swire was unlikely to want to blow up himself and the aeroplane. She is open to criticism, but she did not have the benefit of the hindsight that we have now. I thought that Opposition Members would accept that she tried to use her judgment and to be understanding in a difficult situation.
I speak as someone who, some years ago, travelled on an aircraft on which there was a live bomb. Is the Secretary of State aware that several people have already served prison sentences for carrying dummy or hoax bombs into aerodromes and airports and on to aircraft? Should not there be a common standard of justice, to ensure an end to nonsense of the kind that was perpetrated at Heathrow last week, when intercontinental flights were delayed by as much as three hours?
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, enforcing the law is a matter for the police. The police questioned him about his future conduct, and, in the very special circumstances they decided not to take further action. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a common standard, and that it must be enforced.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in air transport the primary risk does not come from passengers who carry their own luggage and whose identity is known to those who undertake searches of them, but that progress needs to be made with securing greater international co-operation in improving security generally?
My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. In the main, the real danger does not come from accompanied baggage, when the person carrying the bomb travels on the plane, but from attempts to put bombs on planes on which the persons planting them do not intend to travel. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is vital to improve international co-operation. That is why my predecessor and the American Secretary of Transportation took the initiative after Lockerbie of calling on the International Civil Aviation Organisation to draw up much tighter international standards. We continue to work for improved standards in international forums.
Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be easier for us to accept the explanation that Doctor Swire was recognised if there had not been a fairly lengthy hiatus between his announcement that he had tried to put a fake bomb on board and British Airways explanation that he had been recognised? Even if one accepts that statement at face value, is the Secretary of State not aware that he raises doubts in my mind when he says that the radio was discovered by the random checking of baggage? Why was the radio not picked up by the X-ray machine when the hand baggage went through? If he will forgive me for raising the matter, what action is he taking about an Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who disgracefully said that a hoax bomb was in his red box?
May I say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know studies these matters carefully, that this was not hand baggage. It was hold baggage. It was detected as part of the 10 per cent. of hold baggage that is searched on selected aircraft.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, my hon. Friend has already made it clear that he regrets the incident. I ought to point out that the same rules were applied in his case as would be applied in everyone else's case. When he made his foolish remark about his case being full of bombs, the supervisor was immediately called. He was taken to a private part of the examination area and asked to repeat the remark. He did not do so. He retracted it. Had my hon. Friend repeated the remark, the police would have been informed and he would have been interviewed by them. Last year, there were more than 700 of these incidents at Heathrow and Gatwick alone, when jokesters—members of the public—made such claims once but withdrew them when pressed. My point is that the rules that apply to my hon. Friend apply to all those who travel and who make that sort of foolish remark.Is not the ludicrous difficulty that we face that, although it may be possible to test the degree of risk in particular circumstances in a complex operation, as any modern airport is, one has to remember that there is a finite limit to the tolerance of the public when it comes to the delays and inconvenience to which they are prepared to be subjected regularly, if we are to squeeze out the last possible risks?
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Our objective is 100 per cent. screening of all hold baggage. We have written to all airlines and to BAA asking them to come forward with their plans for reaching that target. We recognise that our airports were not designed for this level of search and that there are substantial logistical problems. However, that is the Goverment's declared aim and we intend to pursue it.
It was reported in the press when I wrote to the airlines that some of them were thinking of not co-operating. The point about the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill is that they will not have a choice about not co-operating; directions will be issued and they will be capable of being enforced. We are working towards 100 per cent. screening of hold baggage, but it will take some time.Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the last 10 years, those who use Heathrow airport every week—as many hon. Members certainly do—find that delays of up to 30 minutes are not uncommon when one is being screened for security? In those circumstances, the weaknesses and deficiencies of attempting to achieve 100 per cent. security become obvious. Tempers become frayed and people grow very agitated when they realise that they may miss their flight.
I recognise that there is always a conflict between getting an aeroplane away on time and getting it away safely. People become irritated and think that the security checks are unnecessary until there is an incident, at which point they appreciate the importance of security checks.
I am still worried about airport security. Will the Minister now state to what extent the security forces are protected by being authorised to carry arms? Are they armed at present or are they to be armed following the passage of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, which we hope will be enacted next time?
I do not want to go into too much detail about our security arrangements, because that is a very good way of telling people who might be tempted to get around them what they face. There are armed police on duty at Heathrow and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, exercises are staged from time to time, with a full alert and fully armed soldiers. Our security arrangements do include the provision of armed security.
In his discussions about attempting to reach the 100 per cent. target for security, has the Secretary of State discussed with the various airlines and the British Airports Authority the need for funding? In trying to reach that target, it will be essential to increase the number of personnel who work at our airports and the number of machines that are used to X-ray baggage.
Yes, and one of the difficulties, especially in the south-east, is the recruiting and training of suitable staff. Before someone can be accepted for a security job, his employment records, going back over many years, have to he checked. In an area where there is almost full employment, people are not prepared to be subjected to that search if they can obtain another job. The difficulty lies in recruiting people and keeping them; the problem lies not in a shortage of funds but in getting the right number of staff. As the hon. Lady knows, from time to time people have to be flown from less busy airports to help out at Heathrow in peak periods.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, 18 days ago, four hon. Members flew from London to Leningrad via Frankfurt? While the hold baggage was checked right through to Leningrad, there were no transit facilities for passengers at Frankfurt, as a consequence of which the passengers had to leave and re-enter going through all the customs and ticketing procedures. That gives members of the public an opportunity to leave their hold baggage to go right through and then to leave the airport entirely. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a thoroughly dangerous procedure at Frankfurt? Can he confirm that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will ensure that, if anything like that happened in the United Kingdom, he could stop it immediately?
One of the main aims of the new arrangements post-Lockerbie is to separate incoming and outgoing passengers and transit passengers. We recognise that that is important, as opportunities could arise for exchanging luggage bombs and weapons. We are therefore concentrating on this separation of incoming and outgoing passengers at every airport. We think that that is a major step in the right direction.
My hon. Friend referred to transit baggage. As he probably knows, any transit baggage going through Heathrow on American airlines is automatically the subject of examination even though it goes straight into the hold.Does the Secretary of State accept that we are fed up with continually being assured by Conservative Secretaries of State for Transport that our airport security is adequate, when time and time again its inadequacy is exposed by the press and others, such as Dr. Swire? Is he aware that, by limiting the inquiry into Dr. Swire's action and by blaming the operator staff, he is behaving in a manner that is typical of his Department, which is always shifting the blame? That is in sharp contrast to the Americans' full investigation into their Government authority's role in security matters—an approach that has been resisted by the Department. Is not the real lesson of this case that we require a full inspection of luggage, which is expensive and which takes time, but for which we called in our amendment—which the Government resisted—to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill?
May I impress on the Secretary of State the fact that the relatives of those killed in the Lucherbie and Marchioness tragedies welcome the Department's announcement today of an inquiry into a possible injustice arising out of the Titanic affair 73 years ago but that they would like a full, open, independent inquiry into more recent tragedies, which the Department of Transport is avoiding?We have just heard a typical rant from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He is always getting fed up about something, while other honest people, like the security staff at Heathrow, have the daily business of examining the luggage of hundreds of thousands of people. They do not sit there like him, hoping that something will go wrong so that they can criticise. They get on with the business of trying to make our aviation more secure.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's remark about the presidential commission and full inspection of luggage, Lockerbie is at the moment the subject of a huge criminal investigation including the investigation of security arrangements at Heathrow. It is also the subject of an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and it will be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. I announced last week that the Government exceptionally are going to fund legal representation for the relatives of those who died in that dreadful accident. I want finally to deal with the hon. Gentleman's feeble joke about the Titanic.It was no joke.
It was made to a member of my staff by Dr. Swire at about 1 pm today. There will be a marine accident investigation branch investigation about the Titanic. That will not be a huge full public inquiry; it will involve just the marine accident investigation branch. Exactly the same kind of investigation is already being conducted into Lockerbie by the air accident investigation branch. The hon. Gentleman's point was a total and utter non-point.
So as far as the Department is concerned, I want to repeat what I said earlier—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is really interested in aviation security, perhaps he should stop his noisy colleagues from filibustering on that vital Bill and perhaps we could get it through Parliament and help make Britain's airports safer.Statutory Instruments, &C
With permission, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Redundancy (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973 (Revocation) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy Powers) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the School Boards (Financial Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1277) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1020) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Opposition Day
[I8TH ALLOTTED DAY, FIRST PART]
Environmental Policy
We now come to the debate on environmental policy in the name of Plaid Cymru. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.57 pm
I beg to move,
As the House will be aware, the gift of these minority party debates is organised through our colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party. As hon. Members of that party sit behind me in the Chamber, I begin by thanking them, as members of the senior minority party in the House for helping to facilitate this debate.That this House condemns the current levels of pollution in the Irish Sea, particularly the dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge, and the discharge of untreated sewage, and is not satisfied with current measures to tackle the problem; notes the decision of the European Court of Justice to prosecute the United Kingdom Government for failure to comply with European Community Directives on the quality of bathing water; and calls on the Government to commission an independent survey into the effects of pollution in the Irish Sea and to act on its findings without delay.
On a subject in which we have a common interest.
Indeed—I want to explain why we selected environmental policy as the topic for the debate.
We believe that concern about the environment is the major issue facing the Government and the House. The House will notice that our motion concentrates on marine pollution in the Irish sea. We intend to ask for a response from the Welsh Office and from the Government about that tonight. We will be pushing our motion to a Division because of our concern about the inadequate response so far from the Government on that issue. I might go so far as to suggest that the Government of the Isle of Man have shown greater initiative on that issue than the Northern Ireland Office, the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office. That should get me into sufficient trouble with all the Departments and parties in the House.Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland scientists are excellent people, and their work is very good.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for defending the integrity of the Scottish Office. I should not want to impugn it. The scientists have been very good. Marine scientists have provided us with excellent advice on the issue. We need intergovernmental action. The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an ideal subject on which to convene an intergovernmental conference similar to the one on the North sea. It would provide a forum not only for scientific opinion to be presented on the extent of chemical, sewage and radioactive pollution of the North sea but to initiate joint action.
Marine pollution is a sensitive issue in terms of the marine ecosystem. It clearly relates to food safety and the fishing industry and to the sensitive issue of bathing safety and the health of swimmers and tourists on Welsh beaches. That has clear implications for Ireland, Wales and the English coastline because of our emphasis on tourism and marine recreation. Members of Parliament, scientists and others who highlight marine pollution and dirty beaches are often accused of making political points that can appear negative in terms of marketing our tourist industry. I put that matter straight once and for all. We are deeply distressed about the level of pollution in the Irish sea and other coastal waters around Wales, and we shall not cease to draw attention to the issue as long as there is clear scientific evidence that such pollution exists and that it creates a potential risk to health.Is not it a matter of shame that only one bay in Wales, Pembrey, has merited a European Community blue flag?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I had the misfortune to officiate at the opening ceremony of a sewage outfall in my constituency last year. At that ceremony, I was faithfully promised by the water authority, now Wales Water—Dwr Cymru—that, within a year at the most, a blue flag would be flying over that beach. I have not yet seen it. I emphasise that point because there is a clear obligation on the Government to clean up marine pollution, as it affects the tourist industry. Indeed, there are international obligations on governments that are responsible for maritime pollution. We look not only to the Government but to statutory undertakings such as the National Rivers Authority for their assessment of the pollution in our estuaries and rivers, which lead into the seas and cause maritime pollution. In that context, we should look to the Welsh Office, in particular, to take a firmer lead on maritime pollution and other related pollution issues in Wales.
Maritime pollution is a good example, because all the rubbish that we produce, dispose of and dump ends up in the sea. I refer not only to the rubbish that we produce but to the rubbish that other maritime countries produce. I am not suggesting for one moment that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is more susceptible because it is an island, but my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue. He hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to concentrate further on his proposals for cleaning up the Irish sea. Maritime pollution provides us with a case study of all the environmental problems that we face in Wales. I am concerned that we are not doing our bit to help to prevent the major international ecological disasters that now face us. The Welsh Office has not done its bit in terms of environmental policy. The Welsh Office has been with us for 25 years—we often imagine where we might be without it—yet it has not had a Minister responsible for the environment who would give his or her time and energies completely to that issue. Indeed, at official level, the Department does not have a co-ordinating mechanism to bring together all its responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I invite the Secretary of State, in his first major public response to us in the House, to acknowledge that he is the Secretary of State for the Welsh environment and that, along with his hon. Friends the Members for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), he will take seriously his responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I hope that the Department will produce an initiative on environmental policy that will co-ordinate all the activities of the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State for Wales must see himself as the guardian of the Welsh environment in all its aspects. I should like the Welsh Office not merely to contribute to the general debate on environmental issues, which is conducted at the level—On the point about the responsibilities of the Welsh Office for the environment, and especially for the aquatic and coastal environment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that the Department of the Environment and the Crown Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the use of dredgers off the Welsh coast, which is causing the beaches from Southern Down to Sker Point in my constituency to be denuded of sand, leaving nothing but mud heaps?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for raising that issue, which shows yet again the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments on activities that affect the marine environment.
I hope that this debate will establish that the Secretary of State is taking overall responsibility for this matter. It is not enough for the Department to contribute to the current process of producing a White Paper for the Government as a whole; I expect to see the Welsh Office produce its own equivalent, as happens in other areas of policy, such as education, social policy and—dare I say it—for the health service. There is a Welsh Office face in all those spheres—although it is not always an acceptable face—but the same is not true for the environment. That Welsh Office face would enable those who are concerned, such as the statutory bodies, the local authorities and those involved in the strong environmental movement in Wales to make their representations directly to the Welsh Office and to ensure that the Department is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities. After all, the Welsh Office is the Department of the Environment for Wales. It has most, but not all, of the relevant functions of the Department of the Environment. However, it is also the Department which is responsible for the national parks. At the moment, the Countryside Commission is undertaking a major review of the national parks. Although the initial report will be made to the Countryside Commission, it is important that the Welsh Office should be seen as the Department that takes any decisions that affect the structure of the national parks in Wales. The Welsh Office is also the Department responsible for the activities of local government. Its role is therefore to give a lead to local government in Wales through its policies on the environment. I am thinking especially of waste disposal in local areas, the separation of waste and the availability of waste for recycling. The Welsh Office should be giving a lead to the local authorities and providing small-scale funding to encourage projects that will enable local authorities to tackle such responsibilities in their localities. More than that, however, the Welsh Office should be giving a much higher priority to environmental policy in its own research budget. Much excellent environmental research is already carried out in Wales. Happily, a great deal of it is done at my University college of North Wales at Bangor. I welcome the announcement last week by the Minister of State that the new central administration of the Countryside Council for Wales will be located at Bangor in the offices of the Nature Conservancy Council. There was great demand to locate the offices in other parts of Wales. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) would have loved to have it at Aberystwyth. I can tell him that the town council in Dolgellau wanted it.Bala wanted it, too.
I should not speak about Bala, although it is relevant to the debate on the aquatic environment because it has the largest inland lake in Wales. I must get on with my speech.
I welcome the announcement that the centre will be at Bangor. It will enable the centre to work alongside the excellent unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology which recently produced a document on pollution in Wales for those of us who attended its official re-launch earlier this year. Research has been carried out into acidification, deposition of nitrogen and other aspects of environmental pollution. Those studies represent a high quality of international research in Wales which is relevant to Wales and beyond Wales. The scientists who work at the unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and other experts on environmental policy with whom I have spoken emphasise that they are always short of funding. They often operate on short-term contracts. Where they have longer-term contracts, funding is sometimes inadequate to maintain existing databases. In environmental science where short-term projects produce interesting results it is important to maintain the database perhaps for 10 years. That is the time scale on which interesting, relevant scientific results may appear. I ask the Secretary of State specifically to examine the research budget of his Department and its priorities. He should ask himself whether the minuscule proportion of his Department's budget which is spent on research is adequate. He knows the figures, because he and his colleagues have answered parliamentary questions on the matter recently. About 1 or 2 per cent. of the Department's budget is spent on research. For a Department which spends £4 billion of public money in Wales, clearly that is not enough. The Department cannot simply say that the Department of the Environment already funds research in Bangor. That is true and we are grateful for it. The Scottish Office has funded other aspects of hill farming in Wales and we welcome that. But as the lead territorial Department, the Welsh Office should increase its research budget. In the present context of high priority for environmental issues, a doubling of the Welsh Office budget for research on the environment is the least that we can expect in response to the debate. I know that the Secretary of State is about to respond to me, and I am sure that he will take that suggestion on board. It is important not only to examine the Welsh Office programme of research but to consider how the research that we undertake in Wales can be valuable in understanding the international implications of environmental changes. The nature of the country, its geology and topography makes Wales an ideal area in which to study climatic and environmental changes. The Secretary of State will be aware that, within a radius of 30 or 40 miles of the new office of the Countryside Council for Wales, there are major sites of special scientific interest which include marine sites and sites where alpine ecology can be studied, such as Snowdonia and other upland areas. Within Wales it is possible to study the impact on the Welsh environment of overall climatic changes. For that reason, it is important that Wales should make a direct contribution to international research. It is a matter not just of contributing to environmental research and assessing our environment, but of action research—in other words, of changing the form of activity which is polluting. I want to consider several sources of pollution. In recent years the farming industry in Wales gradually but continually has been reducing its fertilisers to prevent pollution. Only last week, at the royal show at Stoneleigh, we were discussing the substantial shortfall inorganic produce from the farming industry to supermarkets and the food industry.Organic food is too expensive.
It is true that there is a 15 per cent. mark-up on premium quality organic Welsh lamb. If the hon. Gentleman were to taste it more often, he would understand why. It is tastier than the lamb that I suspect he usually eats.
What if my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is a vegetarian?
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is a vegetarian.
I did not say that I was a vegetarian.
Let me get on with my speech.
There is an opportunity for a substantial switch to organic farming in the hills in Wales. There is an opening in the market. The Minister has an opportunity to improve the perceived quality of Welsh products. After all, much of our farmland is grassland with a low level of fertiliser input, so the step to a greener farming industry in Wales is only a small one. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will have something to say about that if he has the chance to speak. We have an opportunity to reduce soil pollution from nitrogen fertiliser at the same time as developing quality products from our agriculture industry. All our manufacturing and extracting industries, particularly quarrying and mining, have a strong negative impact on the environment. Wales has put up with industrial processes which have created employment and unique communities—certainly in mining and quarrying—but which have also created environmental hazards and caused disasters with a cost to human life and young lives. Wales has a legacy of environmentally damaging industries in our economy. I say advisedly to Welsh Office Ministers and the House that when in future we look for inward investment in Wales we must ensure that we expect standards of environmental cleanliness as high as those that would be expected elsewhere. The old argument that it is tolerable to place environmentally unfriendly activities, such as nuclear activities, in remote areas or chemical reprocessing in not-so-remote areas because of the levels of employment and unemployment has gone. We must ensure that we have a green environment which is resource balanced and economically active, based on the ability of the environment to attract industries which are themselves environmentally friendly.Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is just such an urgent case before us now? If the Secretary of State for Wales looks north from his window in the great fortress of the Welsh Office, he will see the first hills of Wales at Taffs Well. There is a historic site of special scientific interest which at this moment is under threat from quarrying. That is repeated right through Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that matter seriously when it is put before him, because it is a precious area of scientific interest.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I may have visited that place during a recent by-election in which he was involved. I am aware of the impact of opencast quarrying because there is a lot of opencast slate mining in my constituency. I appreciate the impact that it can have not just on the immediate level of waste disposal, but on the landscape's overall shape.
Where there are sites of special scientific interest or environmental destruction caused by noise pollution to communities and localities, the Secretary of State, as planning Minister, must consider the issues carefully. I know that the Secretary of State may tend to say, as his colleagues do on planning matters, that he does not want to talk about specific cases because he has to determine individual cases. However, surely he and his team are determining such individual cases in the context of environmental policy. Our frequent complaint is that we do not hear what that policy or strategy is. Where there is a conflict of interests or policy objectives between environmental conservation—whether in national parks or on the borders of urban areas—Or Cardiff bay.
or in Cardiff bay, as the hon. Gentleman says—wherever there are major individual projects and conflicts involving environmental policies, the Department's duty in that case is—if I may coin a phrase—to come clean and spell out clearly to the public its thinking in such matters. If there is a conflict of interest between the various duties of the Secretary of State and his Ministers according to which hats they are wearing, it is better that it should be known and debated in a public forum, rather than hidden behind closed doors in a castle at Cathays park.
We have to consider not only the global effect on our Welsh environment, the contributions that we can make and the sensitivity of the marine environment, but the way in which the Welsh countryside is affected by changes in planning policies. This is an important opportunity for the Secretary of State to show himself to be the greenest Secretary of State there has ever been. I mean Green with a big "G", not a small "g". We know that he is not green in other senses, because he has had a hard training in other Departments. We also know that he has lived for part of his career in a Welsh environment and enjoyed visiting it. I know that he has a love of the Welsh landscape. But we want to see the practical consequences of that and hear him declare himself a green Minister in planning terms. We need to protect the integrity of our national parks, environmentally sensitive areas, sites of scientific interest and designated areas and we need a coherent countryside planning policy. The areas represented by many of my hon. Friends present today include valley communities and the fringes of urban industrial south Wales, as it used to be called, and industrial north-east Wales. In those areas we can see the result of over-development, whether commercial or housing, that is out of character with the landscape and would not be permitted in a national park, where there are strict guidelines controlling the appearance of properties and estates. We need to adopt the same kind of sensitive approach everywhere in the countryside. We might spend a lot of public money trying to re-create an attractive atmosphere in the inner cities, such as the marine districts of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, attempting to renovate districts with old industrial heritages and make them into conservation areas, conserving old buildings or landscaping away the effects of mining and quarrying, but it does not make much sense if we are destroying our landscape and heritage at the same time because of new development. We need consistency of approach by the Department. We need to set Welsh environmental issues in the global context of the threat to the ecosphere, with all its moral, ethical and—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Swansea, East—theological implications. We need to adopt a global approach when scrutinising the micro-environment in Wales—and we need coherence in policy. We must assess the implications for our environment of all policy decisions, and we look to the Secretary of State for Wales, as the new green Minister, to respond to all our points.4.25 pm
I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
I certainly regard environmental policy as my responsibility as Secretary of State, assisted by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State. Environmental policy is vital. The environment is one of the most important policy areas, and my objective is and will remain to improve the quality of life in Wales, with particular reference to the environment. We certainly inherit problems from the past, but, equally, we are trustees for the future. Although we may be able to point to actions in bygone years that have caused the situation today, that is no excuse and no alibi for not ensuring that we take the most urgent and positive action to overcome the problems of our inheritance—so that we can hand over a heritage of an improved quality of life. I must also respond to what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) said about farming. Agriculture is vital to the future of Wales, and a strong and healthy agriculture is crucial to the quality of life there. We must ensure an improvement in that quality of life so that we have an even better environment in which to work and live. As we draw together the policies for the 1990s, towards the year 2000 and beyond, I should have thought that there would be almost unanimous agreement in the House that the environment is one of the key areas on which we must make our policies relevant to the needs of today and to those of future generations. Today's debate could be seen as part of the long-running campaign designed to draw attention to the perceived problems of the Irish sea, but despite the wording of the motion the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy drew back from such a confined analysis, and I welcome the fact that he widened the debate; such was the purpose of our amendment. I readily accept that we have pushed him in the right direction, and I welcome the way in which he responded. When dealing with the environment no single section of society and no single political party has a prerogative; we are dealing with a vital component in the thinking of us all. Environmental issues matter not only because they have an impact on us but because whatever we decide will have a major impact on future generations, too. In that sense we are the stewards of the future and must exercise our stewardship judiciously and with care and prudence. In every possible sense we must take account of the importance of environmental issues. We must be aware of what we are doing and the effects, and we must consider all the evidence before deciding how best to proceed. We must appreciate the damage that can flow from certain policies because such damage is often long-standing. Some problems can be corrected only at enormous cost and with great difficulty. The Government are conscious of the need to care for and protect the environment and of the need to devise policies to ensure that what we value today is available to future generations.'welcomes the major programme of investment to be undertaken by the privatised water companies to improve the quality of water and the comprehensive measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Bill; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern; and looks forward to the publication of the Government's White Paper on the Environment later this year.'.
I am grateful for the way in which the motion is worded, which shows that this is a United Kingdom debate. What do the Government propose to do about new modern trawlers that hoover—there is no other word for it—the sea bed, and especially the beds of the Irish sea and the Minches? Those trawlers drag dumped material to where it should not be, as ICI found in a recent explosives case. The actions of such trawlers lead to the destruction of many breeding grounds of fish and creatures on the sea bed. Serious damage is being caused. The problem has grown in the past four or five years. I am not attacking any Department, because the problem is not of the Government's making, but what do they propose to do about it?
The problem goes back much more than four or five years. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be aware of the positive approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the way in which he has raised such matters in the European Community. I do not want to go into great detail about those discussions, but if the hon. Gentleman has been present for debates and questions about fisheries, he will know that we are expressing serious concern about the need to ensure that not only are quotas strictly observed but that the breeding grounds are protected for future generations. I am pleased at the way in which the hon. Gentleman approached his question and I reassure him about the Government's intentions as expressed in the robust language of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Many of the policies to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred are being implemented and will continue to be implemented to meet the concerns that have been expressed. Caring for the environment requires constant assessment of the relative costs of what is proposed and the benefits that will follow. The environmentally preferable solution is often the most costly. We must be sure that we are prepared to meet such costs, and we must be mindful of their extent in areas which I shall discuss later. Judgments must be made between environmental costs and environmental benefits. For example, we hear much about the cost of dumping sewage at sea, but little about the disbenefits of alternative methods of disposal. We must look at the whole picture. We have already taken some steps, but economic growth is needed to meet the cost of improving the environment, and such growth often causes other environmental problems.The Secretary of State refers to the disbenefits of certain matters. If the long sea outfall is long enough for two tides, will not that sometimes be preferable to trying to absorb the chemical effluent from a sewage disposal plant?
My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. As I said earlier, experts believe that long sea outfalls can—if judiciously managed—be an effective means of disposal. A report by Consultants in Environmental Sciences has examined the assessment.
Often, we must examine the environmental consequences of the alternative means of disposal. I am not aware of an urgent wish on the part of people living in certain areas to have a sewage disposal improvement plant adjoining their houses, or of any who are urging that we should allow effluent from sewage disposal plants to be injected into the sea near where they live. We must always ensure that we examine the total picture before reaching decisions about part of it, especially when that part has given rise to a pressure point from a section of public opinion.Is not that debate already closed as the result of pressure from the European Community? Did not the Government announce on 27 June that any long sea outfalls yet to be put into operation must include a treatment plant? As I understand it, no timetable has yet been announced in respect of Welsh areas such as Swansea bay. When will the Minister be able to announce that timetable, which is the subject of considerable concern in a number of Welsh coastal areas?
I shall respond in more detail to the hon. Member's point in a moment.
In working out any timetable, we must be aware of the costs, and also the relevance of the alternative means of dealing with the sewage. The sewage will not go away; we must find a better method of dealing with it. We must bear it in mind that alternative means of disposal can carry with them equally problematic difficulties for the environment. We must think through the consequences before embarking on the tight timetable that certain sections of public opinion are urging us to adopt.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept—given where his constituency lies—that the fact that a quarter of all the sewage sludge that is dispersed into the waters around these islands is dispersed by the North West water authority into Liverpool bay can cause an enormous localised problem. Given that the Irish sea turns over its water only about twice a year—a very low turnover—that may not be the most appropriate way of disposing of sewage in that location.
I am well aware of the consequences of over-disposals into an area that does not have the necessary turnover of fresh water, although I do not accept the double mechanism to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have not seen that statistic verified, but if it is correct it is equally relevant to the problem that we are discussing.
We must be aware of the environmental impact of alternative methods of disposal when we embark on assessing the costs and benefits. As I said, the problem is that we need the economic growth to pay for improvements in the environment. The Government must provide the means for securing economic growth, while developing environmental policies to ensure that what we have and value remains for succeeding generations. Equally—as our environment is affected not only by what we do but by what other countries do—we must do our best to promote sensible environmental policies, not just in this country but in the wider world. I hope that it is accepted in the House, because I believe that it is widely accepted outside, that the Government have done a tremendous amount to promote and develop environmental policies. Let us take one or two examples. In 1974, a Conservative Government introduced the Control of Pollution Act, but there was a long wait until, under another Conservative Government in 1983, the benefits of that Act were put into operation. Last year, the Government established the National Rivers Authority, which was generally acclaimed as an effective way to improve the water environment. This year, we have in the throes of the parliamentary process the Environmental Protection Bill, which will provide us with the basic framework for our pollution control well into the next century.I do not hesitate to ask this question as the university of Cardiff, with Professor Michael Claridge, who is president of the Linnean Society, and Professor Pritchard, has one of the most distinguished schools in this subject in Europe. The professors made the strongest representations about the natural history museum and the consequences of the changes there for research into all these matters. Will the Welsh Office use its influence to help those who are trying to help the museum to get proper funding for its worldwide responsibilities?
I shall let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed answer to that point, but the policy is that the Welsh Office does not fund museums and galleries, with the one specific exception of the national museum. We shall certainly do our best to help and encourage funding for the museums and galleries in Wales.
Not only has this Conservative Government introduced these Bills and developed major environmental policies, but we have produced the economic climate that allows us to make the investment necessary to implement the Bills when enacted. Water pollution problems are not new. They are not the result of the policies of, or of any recent activity or inactivity by, the Government. Nor did they suddenly appear when water plcs were created. Water quality problems result, in some cases, from industrial and agricultural policies that go back for decades and from a lack of investment by water authorities in relatively unglamorous sectors such as sewage treatment.As a former member of a water authority, I do not feel that we should take all the blame for that, because the previous Labour Government slashed half the investment programme of water authorities. We should have happily spent the money if the Labour Government had given it to us.
I am grateful for that intervention. If the last Labour Government had a record, it was in the size of the cuts imposed on water authorities. I agree that there were serious economic problems, and the IMF had been asked to come in and bale out the Labour Government, so there are understandable reasons why the investment programme was cut. However, it produced the serious problems with which we are now dealing.
It has been common practice in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world to discharge sewage effluent into the sea with only the most preliminary treatment to remove litter, rags and large solid particles, because it had been taken for granted that the size of the sea and the dilution that it provides, and the effect of the sun and the waves, would be sufficient to allow it to continue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that, in many cases, it is.Is not one of the fundamental difficulties the fact that, when the European Community introduced the bathing waters directive in 1976, the Department of the Environment deliberately chose to interpret "bathing beach" in such a way that not a single bathing beach in Wales fell under the definition? As a consequence, the Government were able considerably to delay the implementation of the directive.
I did not wish to be drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) into criticism of the last Labour Government, and equally I should not be drawn into criticism of them by the hon. Member, although it may be attractive to do so to prove my point. The 1976 bathing waters directive was not observed by the previous Labour Government. I do not want to get drawn into the past, because I have a lot to say about what we are doing now, and what we propose to do in the future. I am responding to an intervention. I did not introduce this lengthy look into the past.
Water pollution problems result from practices that have been going on for a considerable time. I remember reading the report, published by the Consultants in Environmental Sciences, of a study for the Department of the Environment of large domestic sewage discharging into coastal waters via a properly designed long sea outfall. It observed little environmental impact. Beyond 50 to 100 m from the point of discharge, the survey failed to detect measurable impacts. Outside the immediate mixing zone, the study said that it would be difficult to detect differences in sea water quality resulting from discharges of treated effluent, or screened raw sewage. The point is that this Government have tackled the problems of water pollution. The Water Act 1989, with the consequential establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and our recent policy announcements are the pivots of our policies on water pollution and show clearly our commitment to resolving the problems. We are determined that the water environment should be improved by all practical steps and in the shortest time scale commensurate with the available technology and resources.As my hon. Friend will know, the Select Committee on the Environment recently carried out a detailed examination of long sea outfall, and its report will be published next week. I cannot say what is in the report, but I can hint that the long sea outfall will be given a fairly clean bill of health.
I am grateful, and I look forward to reading the report.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy spoke about quality. The last national survey took place in 1985 and these are the latest figures that I have been able to find. They show that river quality in England and Wales is such that 94 per cent. of Welsh rivers were in classes 1 or 2, and 83 per cent. were in class 1. Some 98 per cent. of estuarial waters in Wales were in those categories. A report published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea said that, apart from Liverpool bay, where the mercury levels were close to the European Commission limit, although they are now declining, the problems of the Irish sea are essentially minor and short-lived. The Government are also doing more about river quality. One aim of the National Rivers Authority is to achieve a continuing improvement in the quality of rivers. Good quality river water is essential for environmental improvement, and polluted rivers are one of the main sources of sea pollution. This year, the authority is conducting a survey of river quality in England and Wales. When it is published, it will form the basis on which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will set river quality objectives. Those objectives will be the parameters within which NRA policies and decisions on matters such as discharge consents and abstraction licences will be founded. With regard to Wales, the advisory committee that I established under section 3 of the Water Act 1989—and which will advise me on NRA matters—will be meeting shortly. It will closely study NRA policies and will give me the benefit of its advice on how best I can ensure that the NRA implements its policies in Wales. I shall certainly give the NRA every possible encouragement to take positive action to secure improvements in water quality in the Principality.I am glad that the Secretary of State is setting improved standards. Will he ensure that the NRA has a better record for prosecutions, especially for industrial pollution, than did the former water authorities, as shown in the statistics recently produced by the Department of the Environment? Some water authorities did not initiate a single prosecution when rivers were polluted in 1988.
Although I did not attend all the debates, I should have thought that it would have been made clear that one of the main reasons why it was thought right to introduce changes was the lack of positive prosecution. We separated the different responsibilities so that there could be an effective prosecution service. One of the first prosecutions by the NRA was for the Shell spillage last year into the River Mersey. The NRA acted with commendable speed and considerable effect in that case. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted one of the main reasons why the Government thought it right to introduce that legislation.
The 1985 survey gave a number of reasons why river quality was not as good as it should be. The primary reasons were sewage effluent and agricultural pollution. That is why, in the next 10 years, sewerage undertakers in England and Wales will be spending £12 billion on sewerage services, including sewage treatment works and sea outfalls. Dwr Cymru will be investing £400 million during the next five years, including £140 million on sewage treatment works, and a further £300 million in the following five years. Work on some of the worst plants will be completed by March 1992 and will have an immediate impact on the rivers into which the works discharge. I have been concerned about the overall increase during recent years in the number of agricultural pollution incidents. In 1988 there were more than 4,000 reported incidents of pollution by agriculturalists, almost all from silage or slurry liquor. Both are far more effective than raw sewage in damaging the aquatic environment. Last year, the number of incidents fell by 30 per cent., which appears to be a good record, but which I regret was more likely to be caused by the exceptional summer than by good housekeeping. Later this year we shall introduce regulations setting minimum standards for the construction of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil stores and given the NRA the power to require improvements to existing structures. That will go a long way towards reducing the devastating effect of such pollution. The Government have also taken a number of policy initiatives that will have a direct impact on the sea. The North sea conference agreements, in which we played a leading role, are generally welcome and the Government have scrupulously abided by them. Not only that, but we took the decision to extend the agreement for the North sea to all other seas round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. All the agreements reached in the North sea conference have been applied to the Irish sea. That was clearly set out in the guidance note on the second North sea conference in 1988, which said:That we have now done. Particular policy agreements reached in the second North sea conference include, first, that the dumping of polluting material should be ended at the earliest practical date; secondly, that as from 1 January 1989 no materials should be dumped unless there are no practical alternatives on land and it can be shown that the materials pose no risk to the marine environment; thirdly, that sea disposal for sewage sludge be retained as an option, but that urgent action be taken to reduce the concentrations of certain dangerous contaminants and to ensure that the quality of such contaminants disposed of should not increase above 1987 levels; fourthly, that marine incineration be substantially reduced by not less than 65 per cent. by 1 January 1991; and, fifthly, that the practice be phased out by 31 December 1994. We have abided by the North sea agreement. On 22 February, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that industrial wastes were not to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992. The 1987 agreement accepted that wastes such as those licensed by the United Kingdom could continue to be dumped at sea, provided that they did not harm the sea and that there was no practical means of land-based disposal. Nevertheless, we have gone further and, with the co-operation of the companies concerned, we will end dumping of all such industrial waste."In the Government's view … other seas around the kingdom require an equal degree of environmental safeguarding and the changes of policy implied by the declaration will in general be applied consistently throughout the United Kingdom."
The right hon. Gentleman referred to industrial waste being dumped at sea. Does that include waste from Sellafield?
It does not. Industrial waste is carefully defined. I used that definition, and it was accepted, in the conference at which that was decided.
On 5 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that by the end of 1988 the United Kingdom would end the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. At present, some 70 per cent. of sewage sludge is disposed of on land. We have continued to encourage sewerage undertakers to develop land-based disposal methods for the remainder of the sludge. As a result of significant advances in incineration techniques, we decided that the disposal of sewage sludge to sea should end. The time lag is required because of the substantial programme of work and capital investment required to implement alternative disposal methods, including obtaining planning permission. On the same day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that we had concluded that a case could be made for treating all substantial discharges of sewage. We have decided that, in general, municipal sewage should receive secondary treatment, but that primary treatment would be more appropriate for discharges to coastal waters where it can be shown that that would not adversely affect the environment. It is estimated that introducing that level of treatment will cost about £1.5 billion, which is additional to the investment currently programmed to improve the quality of our bathing waters. That in itself will cost £1.4 billion, of which £100 million is to improve bathing water quality in Wales. In the third North sea conference in March, further agreements were reached that will again be applied to all waters round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. It was agreed to end sewage sludge dumping by 1998; to cease dumping industrial waste by 1992; to destroy PCBs by 1995 if possible, and by 1999 at the latest; to reduce by 50 per cent. or more by 1995 some 37 key hazardous substances coming from rivers; to reduce from 1995 by 70 per cent. or more emissions to rivers or to the atmosphere of cadmium, lead mercury and dioxines; to reduce by 50 per cent. atmospheric emissions of 17 dangerous substances by 1995, or at the latest by 1999; to halve from 1985 levels the input of nutrients in sensitive areas by 1995; and to strive for a substantial reduction in pesticides, with control of their use and application by 1992. Those are important agreements, and as those policies come into effect, they will make a considerable impact on the seas round our coast. We have not finished there. The Environmental Protection Bill, now passing through another place, will provide further assurances of a cleaner, safer environment. We shall introduce the concept of integrated pollution control with, for the first time, a single regulatory body controlling emissions to land, water and air. In that respect, as in others, we are ahead. Our initiatives in recent years, and our continuing efforts in pollution control and environmental improvement are, by any standards, a considerable achievement. They demonstrate our total commitment to the improvement and protection of our environment and give impetus to other countries to follow suit. But we have not finished there. In the autumn, we will publish an environmental White Paper that will bring together in one document our achievements and will also set out how we intend to move forward with setting an environmental agenda for the rest of the century and beyond. The Environmental Protection Bill's 147 clauses cover much territory, but they are united by one goal—a cleaner and safer environment. Far too often these days, people come near to discrediting what is fundamentally a good cause. The best way of avoiding that is to provide more information, not less. The Bill will give the public more access than ever before to information on industrial pollution and on how individual firms will be obliged to clean up their operations. The Government have pressed for a Europewide agency to monitor environmental quality in every member state. The view is commonly held that environmental issues will play a prominent part in national and international political debate in the last decade of this century. Therefore, it is appropriate to begin with a Bill which will, whatever arguments may be made about it, provide a secure framework for much of our pollution control well into the next century. Control and regulations are vital for improved environmental quality, just as they they are important to the raising of health standards and securing safety at work. However, they provide only part of the means of enhancing environmental quality. Our unequivocal view is that the best way of achieving that objective is a judicial mix of government regulation and market economics. The market and private enterprise are often challenged by regulation to achieve higher technological standards and better performance, and that is right. The environmental history of eastern Europe in particular demonstrates that state control does not go hand in hand with better environmental standards and regulation. I do not know where the Opposition would strike the balance, but I trust that they accept that such controls are not without cost, and that incentives other than controls are often the best means of achieving environmental goals cost effectively. Whatever may be the Opposition's views on that point, they must share our belief that sensible and sustainable growth is the friend, not the enemy, of a cleaner and greener environment. It is vital that the coherent and sophisticated system of pollution control that we are introducing in the Bill is credible. Credibility requires that such a system is operated by strong and effective institutions, and that it should be open to public scrutiny. We are to some extent still in the early stages of establishing some of the institutions that will monitor and control pollution. For example, the National Rivers Authority has only recently started operating, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution did not come into being until 1987. Institutional questions will inevitably take some time to get right, and we shall consider them in the context of our work on the White Paper to be published later this year. There would be little point in establishing an excellent system of pollution control without a means of implementing it. I referred to the history of pollution, and we are dealing with problems that have their origins a long way back. Others were created in the 1960s and 1970s. We have reduced the discharge from Sellafield to 3 per cent. of what it was in 1979, for example, so there have been major advances. The Environmental Protection Bill is far from being our last word on our environmental policies. It would be ludicrous to try to solve all the problems in one Bill—doubly so in respect of environmental issues, which require the most up-to-date scientific information and unparalleled international co-operation to resolve. We will set out in the White Paper our environmental policy for the United Kingdom for the rest of the decade and into the next century. It will bring together a strategy for the environment in a single, comprehensive document dealing with all aspects of environmental work. It will confirm that we as a nation are prepared to play our part in creating a preferred environment, and that we shall fully discharge our obligations as trustees for future generations.5.7 pm
Before I comment on the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome back to the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), with my best wishes for his full recovery. I cannot give the same welcome to the hon. Gentleman's beard, but that is a matter of taste.
We welcome this opportunity to debate environmental problems, particularly in respect of the Principality. The Government amendment allows more scope for debate than does the Plaid Cymru motion. The Secretary of State made several references to the Environmental Protection Bill. The Government were so concerned about that legislation and its impact on Wales that not one Minister from the Welsh Office or even one Conservative Member from Wales served on the Bill's Standing Committee—despite the fact that the Bill contains matters of considerable importance to Wales. The Minister from the Scottish Office did his best, but they were really matters for the Welsh Office. Doubtless that issue will be raised again. Although the motion concerns pollution levels in the Irish sea, it touches on an issue of significance for the Principality. The Secretary of State referred to the benefits of water privatisation, but were he to undertake a survey in north, mid or south Wales, he would find almost universal condemnation of it. That is not simply because the people of Wales will have to pay a horrendous water poll tax in the next few months. They have other bills to pay, too, because they have, rightly, concentrated on improving the quality of the water in their rivers and reservoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked in a recent parliamentary question about the quality of drinking water in Wales. The answer that he received was that 21 of the 34 water works in Wales have failed the Government's tests for aluminium in water. Our beaches, which are so vital to the tourist industry, especially in the north and west of Wales, stand condemned in the eyes of the world because of the dirt and filth that pollute them. Our marine environment is precious to us all. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for having referred to the cuts in the natural history museum's budget. In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State said that the Welsh Office does not deal with the funding of museums outside Wales. However, the Welsh Office funds research. Research at the natural history museum in London could play a large part in helping to solve the pollution problems in the Principality. I hope that when the Secretary of State returns to Wales he will arrange a meeting with Professor Claridge and discuss these important issues with him. The drinking water inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority will become part of a new environmental protection agency when there is a Labour Government. The agency would be mirrored at both regional and local government level. It would have an important role to play in determining and monitoring pollution in the Principality. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for having pressed the Welsh Office—it has been hard to do so in recent months—about the sewage outfall at Lavernock in south Wales. Only reluctantly did they receive the answer that it would be fully treated before it entered the Bristol channel.The hon. Gentleman puts faith in the ability of local authorities to deal with waste. I remind him that local authorities in this country as a whole were given 10 years in which to submit their plans for waste disposal to the Department of the Environment. During that 10-year period, fewer than 50 per cent. of them bothered to do so.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Were he to read the response given by the previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), to the Association of District Councils, he would find that the Secretary of State said that, in exercising their functions as waste disposal and collection authorities, Welsh district councils were doing an extremely good job. The main problem, however, is lack of resources. It is ironic that after more than 10 years of Conservative Government hardly any of the money that has come into our coffers from North sea oil has been used by the Government to deal with pollution, or with waste collection and disposal.
The debate highlights the problems connected with waste collection and disposal in Wales. The problems are different in Wales. The district councils are both collection and disposal authorities. They face new problems over recycling industrial hazardous waste coming to Wales from eastern Europe via West Germany and other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will, I am sure, refer later to the landfill tip in Swansea which deals with waste from eastern Europe. The Government have agreed to retain the existing structure in Wales. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill the Government assured us that Welsh district councils will still be the collection and disposal authorities. The same will apply to Scotland. Scottish district councils will also be exempt from the private competition regulations that are to apply to England, but the Government are unwilling to exempt Wales, even though the position in Wales and Scotland is exactly the same. The last thing that Welsh district councils want when they are burdened with the collection and disposal of waste is to be still further burdened by having to compete with private industry. Waste disposal by private industry is exemplified by one firm in my constituency, ReChem International, which is a blight on Wales because of the pollution it causes. Last week the financial press referred to ReChem as a good investment; its profits were soaring, despite a slump during the past 12 months on account of bad publicity. Most of the company's profits are made from imports, most of which are polychlorinated biphenyls. The toxic waste trade is suspect and bitterly disliked. My constituency is the centre for the disposal of much of the world's most deadly poisons. That is wrong. Labour will end the commercial trade in toxic waste.This is an important matter. All of us are guardians of the world environment. What does the hon. Gentleman think that third-world countries should do with their PCBs if they are not allowed to export them to be destroyed by the countries which often provided them with the PCBs in the first place?
That is an important point, but ReChem International does not import toxic waste from many third-world countries. I am glad that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened, because it allows me to tell him that the industrial waste comes from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. None of those is a third-world country. The figures provided to us by the Welsh Office suggest that the vast bulk of the trade in toxic waste coming to the ReChem incinerator in Pontypool is from developed countries. Our view, which I am sure is held by many parties, is that each developed country should look after its own toxic waste.
It will be of interest to those hon. Members with port constituencies that the following ports have been used to import toxic waste: Chatham, Dartford, Dover, Felixstowe, Gravesend, Harwich, Immingham, Ipswich, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Seaforth and Tilbury. Toxic waste comes to Wales for disposal from each of those ports. We all welcome the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Recently it recognised for the first time that people in south Wales are genuinely concerned about having the ReChem incinerator in their midst. The Select Committee's recommendations amount to a first step towards a major public inquiry into what should happen to that plant. The Secretary of State has made much of the provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill and of what the White Paper will contain. However, that will have no significance unless appropriate resources are provided to deal with the problem. During the past few years, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been seriously under-resourced throughout Britain, but particularly in Wales. There are not enough inspectors. The Government must give a full commitment to increase substantially HMIP's resources, to ensure that there is proper monitoring of pollution in both Wales and the country as a whole. The most significant underfunding has been the underfunding of local authorities. We look to them not just to dispose of waste but to keep our streets clean and to ensure that litter is cleared away from our town centres. Throughout the past 10 or 11 years the Government have systematically robbed councils of rate support grant, which has made it increasingly difficult for Welsh councils to deal with litter. Although the Bill imposes a duty on local authorities to collect litter, it does not provide them with a single extra penny with which to carry out that duty. Therefore, that duty is bound to be empty and meaningless. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will battle with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Welsh local authorities—which have a good record in local government—have more resources put at their disposal. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time exercising his mind about putting resources into the local authorities instead of wasting millions of pounds on administering the poll tax, he would be thanked by the vast majority of people in Wales. The fundamental problem lies with the Government. They dislike local government, and that has been evident from the number of Acts of Parliament affecting local government—more than 50 in the past 10 years. The Government are obsessed with privatisation and ideology. I suspect that that is why they have abandoned the pledge on the privatisation of electricity—that they would ensure that there are flue gas scrubbers in our coal-fired power stations. That is a major problem. The Government do not realise that there should be a proper mix of public intervention, regulation and bans and private sector intervention, in the form of the market, the price mechanism and green taxes. Opposition Members are at one in believing that, until Wales is rid of the Conservative Government, our environment will not get much better.5.21 pm
I welcome the debate, even though it is inspired by the Opposition, because I welcome any debate on the environment. This is an issue that is so important that it needs to be kept at the top of our agenda but unfortunately, all too often, we naturally become obsessed with inflation, interest rates, mortgage rates, the community charge, defence and so on. The environment tends to be lost from our sight.
It is important to give credit to the Government for what they have done well, as well as to demand action from them. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment are to be congratulated on the immense strides that they have made recently on the environment. I am delighted about that. Suffolk, Central is landlocked and therefore has no coastal problems. My excuses for intervening in the debate are that I am especially fond of the sea, one of a declining breed of sea bathers, and an extremely keen sailor, and, perhaps more important—I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) will forgive me—I have been visiting the island of Anglesey for my holidays almost every year for more than 50 years. I am very fond of it and extremely anxious about what happens to it. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter in the past. I was in Anglesey at Whitsun, as were many other folk. The weather was quite good. I went, as I always do, to my favourite beach, Traeth Bychan. When I drew my curtains on the first morning, I was horrified to see my favourite bay looking as though it was full of brown Windsor soup. That is the only way that I can describe it. It remained like that for several days, during which families and young children wanted to go for a paddle or a swim and to enjoy the sea. The shallow water where children would paddle was even worse. To continue my culinary comparison, the shallow waters were more like chocolate mousse. I took my own samples and sent them off. I do not yet have the results. I do not know the reasons for the appearance of the sea. I have made inquiries at the university at Bangor—to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred—and elsewhere. I hope that I will receive some satisfaction and help from the university. From what I have been able to discover, it is almost certain that sewage will be implicated one way or the other.I warn the hon. Gentleman to be aware that the scientists may claim that it is only algae that is at fault. We had a similar problem with the sea in south Wales which, with the sun, went brown. We thought that the problem was caused by "Douglas Hurds", but it was not. Whatever they were, they had the same effect. There was a direct correlation with pollution, although a form of algae was responsible.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Algae has been talked of as a possible culprit in the case to which I referred. Certainly, much of what I saw and waded into briefly did not smell like algae.
I have quite an intimate knowledge of the local sewerage system in that part of the world. When, as an undergraduate, I had to earn some money to keep myself alive during the long summer vacations—like many other people—I worked for the contractor who installed the two outfalls in nearby villages—Benllech and Moelfre. I was involved there, albeit only as a labourer or a hod-carrier. There was a huge debate at the time about whether the outfalls would do the job, how long they should be and whether land-based treatment would be more satisfactory. Everybody who was concerned about the standard of water at that time was assured that all would be well. I cannot tell hon. Members precisely how far beyond low water mark the outfalls go, but my guess is that it is no more than 100 m. That means that their effectiveness depends on the correct use of tide flows, wind direction and so on. Bearing in mind those factors, it is not unlikely that whatever is realised from the outfalls may find its way back to our beaches—possibly just at the wrong time of year when people wish to enjoy the beaches. It has been suggested that Liverpool bay is implicated, and that may be so. One cause of the pollution could be discharges further up the coast in Wales and up the Lancashire coast, which may come back down to cause the damage. No one can be really sure of either the cause or the long-term effect. But when our oceans are so precious, why take the risk? The only way to eliminate the problems in the long term is to deal with all our sewage on land. That is perhaps a radical solution, but I believe that we shall come to it eventually. I am concerned that, in all the huge projects that we are now discussing, the immense amounts of money involved—if not misspent—could perhaps be better spent. With hindsight we will wish that we had thought the matter through more carefully and seriously considered the possibility of treating sewage on land. I know that there are difficulties. Every day, 300 million gallons of sewage are discharged to our rivers and seas. I know what an enormous task and challenge it would be to deal with that sewage on land. The Secretary of State has pointed out all the difficulties—the costs, the burden on industry and the possible environmental effects on the land as well as on the sea. I believe that the challenge is worth taking up. For industry, necessity is the mother of invention, and I believe that industry would respond. When faced with the threat to the ozone layer in recent times, industry has responded rapidly to the problem of chlorofluorocarbons. In a more minor way, industry has solved the problem of the rings on Coca Cola cans which used to cause so many problems when they were thrown away or used to fiddle parking meters. The cans are now made so that the rings cannot be detached from them. Those are two examples—one major and one minor—of the way in which industry will respond to problems when forced to do so.Has my hon. Friend read the report by the Select Committee on the Environment on land pollution, especially the part of it dealing with the problem that the Dutch have experienced because they simply do not have enough land to dispose of all the slurry? Their solution has been to cull some of their cows. Does my hon. Friend suggest that we start culling some of his farmers' cows in Suffolk so that we do not overdo the pollution that could be caused on the land? Perhaps my hon. Friend is not taking into account the fact that we should be incinerating a great deal of waste.
My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I am not suggesting that I have all the solutions to those problems. However, industry is working on them at the moment. For example, ICI is developing new plants to try to accelerate the process of treating sewage. It has also developed a product for treating the water that is released into our rivers after sewage has been treated. Although we can remove 90 per cent. of the bacteria that cause problems later, when the water is discharged to our rivers and seas, 10 per cent. of the bacteria remains. That is a major problem, although I understand that ICI has developed a system which eliminates that difficulty. It is an enormously beneficial move.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that I should make progress. I am conscious that I do not represent a Welsh constituency, so I am imposing on the House tonight.
I appreciate that my remarks may be rather more emotional than scientific. In an age in which we can put a man on the moon, when it takes four hours to get from London to New York by aeroplane and when satellites allow us to sit in our homes and watch what is happening on the other side of the world, I cannot believe that it is right to simply discharge our waste products into the ocean. Time does not allow this evening for detailed technical arguments like those which my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is encouraging me to enter into. Anyone who has paddled or swum in the sea, sailed on it or fished it, thrown a pebble into it or simply sat and looked at it—that is, every one of us—must be aware of the physical and emotional importance of that hugely important asset and must accept that it should not be damaged or risks taken with it. I am aware of the difficulties, but as there is a White Paper in the offing I urge my colleagues on the Government Front Bench to consider the possibility of a commitment at some point to treat all our sewage on land.5.31 pm
Many of my parliamentary colleagues from Wales travel weekly to London. When I left Cardiganshire today to motor over the Plynlimon mountains to join the InterCity train at Caersws to take me across the border, I took a look at the environment. The countryside from Cardiganshire to the border is worth looking at at this time of year.
And then?