I beg to ask leave to present two petitions. One is from 71 business men and persons having cause to visit Foulness island in my constituency requesting that Havengore bridge, which is the only means of access to the island, be promptly replaced.

The bridge was built in Germany and transported to Foulness island secondhand in 1921. As the island is a military area, the bridge is the property of the Ministry of Defence. The petition points out that the bridge is old and in bad condition. The lifting mechanism which should enable ships to pass underneath it is worn out and does not work. The bridge is unsafe and loads crossing the bridge have to be broken down into small packets incurring considerable costs to business people. Also, there are delays due to single line traffic on the bridge and the compulsory long spacing between vehicles crossing. The petition is signed by farmers, shopkeepers, teachers, contractors, grain merchants, agricultural engineers, millers, councillors, suppliers, tradesmen and craftsmen.

The second petition, or, the same subject, is signed by 98 per cent. of the residents of Foulness island—172 people. It makes the same point about the poor condition of the bridge and refers to the fact that the bridge is frequently closed, sometimes for weeks, thus locking the islanders into the island or away from their homes from 7 o'clock in the morning to 5 o'clock at night. They also point out that there is restricted access for emergency services, and the vital work of rebuilding the sea defences is being severely curtailed. I should like to associate myself with those remarks. The petitions conclude:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the hon. Members of the House of Commons should bear in mind the inconvenience and expense incurred by the existing bridge. We ask that they should therefore urge the Minister of Defence that he should recommend to the House the urgent replacement of Havengore Bridge. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is the second time within the comparatively short period that I have been a Member of this place that I have had the extreme good fortune of drawing among the top names in the private Member's Bill ballot. Some seven years ago, almost immediatedly upon arrival, I found myself in the happy position of introducing a Bill. The House will probably recall that it contained the proposition that public houses should be allowed to remain open on the basis of flexible hours and should be allowed to have family rooms. I failed to win the support of the House then, but I have good reason to believe that the Government are likely to promote a similar measure in the not-too-distant future. I hope that, better late than never, such a measure will be placed on the statute book.

More relevantly, I trust that it will not be eight years before the Bill is enacted. I am quite confident that my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are in fuller support of this measure than they were seven years ago of my previous Bill.

It is a simple Bill which is aimed at extending the provisions of civil defence, which were initially ruled by the Civil Defence Act 1948, so that the civil defence organisation and its personnel may be used for peacetime emergencies as well as those of wartime. Three years after the second world war those who were then in authority did not think beyond the military measures which were needed to defend our country against such disasters. Having, happily, enjoyed many years of peace, it is now time to turn our attention less to wartime measures and more to peacetime needs while never forgetting the possibility that we may once again be embroiled in war, however much we all wish to avoid that fate.

The Bill is designed to encourage, but not to enforce, the use of civil defence personnel in the fighting of peacetime disasters. I shall explain the background to the Bill, but before doing so I should like to thank those who have helped me in its preparation. I thank especially my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and his officials, who have been extremely helpful in drafting the Bill and in my consultations with them in determining precisely how I should go about putting the Bill before the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who suggested that I should take up the Bill. His invaluable help has supported me throughout its preparation and I welcome his presence in the Chamber today.

I thank Mr. Tony Hibbert and the National Council for Civil Defence, whose parliamentary representative I was proud to be about six years ago and whose work in the preparation and encouragement of civil defence has been extremely necessary. It has been the bulwark on which civil defence has advanced over the past few years. Last, but by no means least, I thank Mr. Eric Alley, whose civil defence work at Easingwold in advising the Home Office and assisting me with the Bill has been invaluable.

The background to the Bill arises from the Civil Defence Act 1948, in which a civil defence corps was set up to provide a disaster mechanism whereby the civilian population could be helped in the event of Britain being attacked by another power. Sadly, that organisation was disbanded in 1968 when a Government of a different persuasion from the present Administration felt that there was no longer a military or wartime need for such an organisation. I hope that the Opposition now see the importance and value of such an organisation for dealing with peacetime disasters. The skeleton force which remained after the civil defence corps was disbanded was still in existence, but only just, in 1979. Government expenditure at that date was about £20 million in support of the civil defence organisation.

In 1980, a Conservative sub-committee was set up under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), who is now the Minister for Trade. Its remit was to examine civil defence needs. I was happy to serve as a member of the committee. It considered the needs of the civil defence organisation and what should be done to promote it in terms of wartime preparations only. It reported to Viscount Whitelaw, who was the then Home Secretary. I am glad to say that many of the committee's recommendations have been implemented by the Government and that over the past few years there has been a steady improvement in the back-up facilities of civil defence in the training at Easingwold and in the numbers of those who are involved in the organisation.

The real breakthrough did not come until 1983, when the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations set out clear duties for local authorities in the setting up of civil defence organisations in their own areas. Many of the provisions within the regulations are relevant to the peacetime operation of civil defence functions and I hope to illustrate that.

My hon. Friend will be aware of all the dicussions that took place before the regulations were made. It is unfortunate that many local authorities are still evading their responsibilities under them. I welcome my hon. Friend's Bill, but I fear that by its nature it may not be able to force recalcitrant local authorities to carry out their duties. Does my hon. Friend think that his Bill might engender the attitude that civil defence is not about wartime planning alone? Does he believe that it will lead to a realisation that civil defence involves planning generally and that there is no reason why political authorities, even of persuasions different from ours as Conservative Members, should oppose it?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's great expertise in civil defence matters and the great amount of work that he has put into them. I accept that the Bill's provisions will not force local authorities to undertake the peacetime use of their civil defence organisations. I regret that in some ways, but I feel that my objective is better won by persuasion than by force. I hope that we shall encourage individuals to volunteer and local authorities to fulfil more willingly their duties under the 1983 regulations and set up civil defence organisations that will be effective even in those zones that have been so misguidedly described as nuclear-free. As I have said, the breakthrough came in 1983 with the civil defence regulations and the Government's undertaking to adopt an all-hazards approach to civil defence. That breakthrough has been embraced by the Bill. It was decided that the civil defence organisation should become a larger body and one capable of dealing with emergencies that arise out of wartime or peacetime disasters, as well as encouraging local authorities to prepare for any emergencies and to ensure that the co-operation of their local emergency services, local authority services and volunteers is such that there is a readiness and ability at any time to respond to emergencies.

The obvious question is whether and to what extent the 1983 regulations are relevant to peacetime disasters. Some of them are clearly not, because they are designed to deal with war. One example is the provision for the preparation of shelters. However, seven of the 12 regulations in schedule 2 are relevant. I shall deal with them in detail.

Paragraph 5 states:

"plans should be made for providing a service for the rescue of people in damaged buildings. Such plans should draw together the resources of fire brigades, works and engineering directorates, voluntary organisations, civil defence volunteers and private sector civil engineering firms."

I can think of no more concise definition of the way in which a local authority should prepare itself for the type of emergency which might happen at any time in any place.

Paragraph 6 states:

"plans should be made for the billeting and temporary accommodation and maintenance of people made homeless by attack."—

and by any other disaster.

Paragraph 7 states:

"plans should be made for the prevention of disease and of the spread of disease, particularly for emergency sanitation and removal and disposal of refuse likely to case a hazard to public health."

In the event of flooding or other such disaster that type of service will be necessary to deal with the aftermath.

Paragraph 9 states:

"plans should be made for the distribution, conservation and control of food and the provision of emergency feeding services for those … who are without food or the means of preparing it."

Paragraph 10 states:

"plans should be made for work services for the urgent repair, replacement, demolition or clearance of land, buildings or roads. Local authorities have their own engineering works services, but their plans will need to include arrangements to use other appropriate resources outside their normal peacetime control and the regional arrangements."

Paragraph 11 states:

"plans should be made for the provision and maintenance of services essential to the life of the community other than those mentioned in the preceding paragraphs."

Paragraph 12 states:

"plans should be made for the participation in civil defence of voluntary organisations".

We are anxious for my hon. Friend's useful Bill to be put on the statute book as soon as possible. He has given a list of so many possibilities using a wartime network of facilities which could be used in peacetime. Perhaps in Committee we can add a schedule illustrating the type of incidents for which such facilities might be used.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. We could certainly examine that possibility in Committee. However, such a schedule might be more exclusive than helpful because it might then be possible to say that because an incident is not listed in the schedule the facilities cannot be used. I shall examine the suggestion closely in Committee.

The 1983 regulations impose a statutory duty upon local authorities to train and organise. That duty is contained in regulation 4(1)(f). The specific duties spelt out in detail are that local authorities should undertake the recruitment, organisation, training and exercising of civil defence volunteers to provide vital humanitarian and support services within the community in time of war. Under my Bill, that duty will remain. The Bill does not impose a duty on local authorities to use those services in peacetime, but it removes the prohibition in the 1948 Act under which local authorities cannot use those services in peacetime. It will enable local authorities to use such services normally if they wish.

It is a sad fact that only 9,000 volunteers are serving in the civil defence reserves. About 2,000 of those are in Devon, so only 7,000 cover the country outside that county. That is clearly inadequate to deal with the many emergencies that might arise in peacetime, let alone with what might happen to our civilian population should we have the misfortune to come under attack.

In addition to the 9,000 volunteers, 1,200 scientific advisers give their knowledge voluntarily to local authorities and try to assist with some of the difficult scientific questions with which they have to grapple in the complications of defence.

I have not mentioned the WRVS and the St. John ambulance brigade which have an extremely important part to play in peacetime and wartime emergencies. They already exist and are outside the Bill's scope.

If the Bill is passed, one of the primary advantages will be to encourage people to volunteer for the civil defence reserves. We all hope that there will not be another war. I am glad that the threat of such a war seems remote to most people, although on my wireless yesterday as I drove to the House I heard a programme in which it was said that the young people of Britain are more concerned than adults about the danger of a European war. We are attempting to safeguard their future and they are most likely to volunteer for such a service.

I hope that we can encourage the recruitment and training of young people 5,0 that their skills can be used not only if there is a war but on a regular basis in peacetime emergencies which affect their local communities. I hope that we shall be able to convert the 9,000 to more than 100,000. We need that number if we are to cover the ground so that the service can be of help throughout the land.

I shall deal in detail with the circumstances in which a civil defence organisation can be useful in peacetime. I shall attempt to illustrate that need with what has been happening here and abroad.

The Government are aware of the possibility of such an organisation being needed and they believe that it would be useful. My noble Friend Lord Elton took up the matter in a debate instigated by Lord Renton, who pressed for precisely this type of legislation. Lord Elton said:

"The expertise, the emergency planning teams and the industrial emergency services officers, the emergency plans for such things as emergency feeding and housing and other forms of care, the county and district emergency centres with their widespread communications links, the well-established liaison arrangements with the police, fire and ambulance service, and the involvement of volunteers already trained to act in grave emergencies, ought also to be available in time of peace, and we remain absolutely committed to legislation." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 1985; Vol. 459, c. 1091-2.]

The type of emergency of which Lord Elton was thinking and of which I am thinking today can arise out of two causes—natural disaster or man-made disaster. We tend to be a little complacent about natural disasters because we are mercifully spared the appalling horrors of volcano, flood, hurricane and tornado. Sometimes we underplay the danger that we face.

During harsh winters we suffer severely from blizzards, floods and gales. Between the Humber and Thames estuaries about 250,000 people are at risk from flooding. It is now 33 years since the last great disaster on the east coast. At that time the damage was great and several lives were lost. I shall add a little more detail to that at the end of my speech.

More recently, in 1978, floods and gales in the west country caused widespread damage. The Devon volunteer service was called out, as it frequently is on a local basis, to deal with that emergency. The service it gave was acknowledged by all to be invaluable in helping to avert the full horrors of the crisis which might otherwise have occurred.

My grandmother lived in Dorset until, sadly, she died two or three years ago. In 1978 she lived in a bungalow on top of a hill which was covered in snow. She was unable to get in or out of her bungalow for over a week. She was over 90 at the time, but mercifully she was well prepared for such emergencies, having lived there for a long time and being a sensible lady. However, some old people are not capable of making provision to ride out such weather hazards. If we have no volunteer service, no prepared organisation with adequate personnel to travel round and ensure that elderly people in their homes are properly protected and fed and warm, then we shall lose many lives quite unnecessarily.

The use of the Devon volunteer service in cases like that, and because they are entirely voluntary, can be justified but there is no statutory backing for a local authority using the service in that way and there is a danger that should such use cost public money, somebody who, for whatever reason, decided to obstruct the use of voluntary help at such times, could take out an injunction and would have a good chance of preventing the use of such voluntary help. Clearly, that would be in the interests of no one and I am sure that the use of such services meets with the whole-hearted opprobrium of hon. Members in all parts of the House. But the danger of someone preventing the use of help in that way is real and we must recognise it and deal with it.

In 1976 hurricanes caused extensive damage in Sheffield and Glasgow. That proves that we are not wholly immune from natural disasters, and when we face them the volunteer services have a great role to play. More relevant are the man-made disasters that happen as a result of human or mechanical failing. This is an immensely complicated and every day more dangerous world in which we are creating things largely for the benefit of mankind but also sometimes, unfortunately, to our detriment. Perhaps I could give some examples. There have been many disasters abroad where volunteer help of this kind was essential.

At Seveso, dioxin escaped from a chemical plant and vast numbers of people were severely injured. At Bhopal when methylisocyanate escaped, 2,500 people died and 200,000 were injured. We all hope that no such disaster could possibly happen here, but we have plants where equally dangerous chemicals—indeed that very chemical — are stored, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that, through error, or as a result of mechanical failure, we might suffer a disaster on that scale. If we did, I am quite sure we are not remotely in a position to deal with it properly.

At Flixborough in 1974, 12,000 people were put at risk following an explosion at a factory. Some 1,800 houses were damaged and 5,000 people had to be evacuated. That placed our system under enormous stress. I say with confidence that if the proposals in this Bill had been available and had been acted upon locally, a great deal of hardship and suffering could have been avoided. I ask the House to imagine the greater disaster that occurred in Mississauga in Canada a few years ago when as a result of a rail crash there was a similar chemical leakage. A vast gas cloud hung over a local town and 218,000 people had to be evacuated within 24 hours or they would have been at risk of their lives. That could happen here, and if it does, how will we deal with it? I fear that the answer at the moment is that we do not have any kind of service capable or prepared to deal with such emergencies.

I am following my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. What he is telling the House is disturbing, because it seems that we are not at all prepared to deal with an emergency of the type he has illustrated. Is the House right in assuming that his research has shown that if we were to get an aggravated discharge at Sellafield we would not be able to cope with it?

I am quite certain that my hon. Friend is correct. We have no adequate preparation to deal with a massive escape of radioactivity and that is one of the things that most frightens our people. I will not pretend that the setting up of the volunteer type of organisation that I am proposing, or that by encouraging the use of our civil defence services, we shall be able to solve such a problem at a stroke. Any major leak of radioactivity would be beyond the scope of my proposals. However, we ought to be much better prepared to deal with such disasters than we are at present.

Perhaps I could return from the megadisasters of that type to the ones that we have experienced. At the Humber estuary in 1983 there was massive oil pollution, and the volunteer services there were used. The civil defence headquarters and emergency communications system was used to great effect in helping to get rid of the oil pollution and to limit the amount of damage. I should stress that at that time the emergency services were on call and used for 15 days.

One of the most useful ways in which the civil defence organisation can be used to public benefit during such emergencies is to remote from the ordinary local authority administration the sudden burden of dealing with such disasters, because such disasters can take a long time to deal with. As I have said, it took 15 days to deal with that one and at Flixborough it took three months to clear up after the disaster. During the whole of such time the headquarters and communication network of the civil defence can step in and take over so that the local authority can continue the difficult and full time task of ordinary administration in its area.

I do not need to remind the House of the appalling tragedy at Aberfan in 1966 when 144 people, of whom 116 were children, were killed. At that time the civil defence organisation was used to assist, but the administration of the assistance was poor. An effective volunteer service and its effective administration at that time could have done a lot to alleviate the appalling suffering in the aftermath of that disaster. More locally still in terms of going down the scale of disasters from nuclear to the less serious disasters, train crashes happen frequently. We have not yet had aircraft crashes, but by the law of probability one is bound to occur some day in some built-up area. Such disasters call for the kind of emergency services that I hope this Bill will serve to promote.

I cannot put better the need for such services or their value than what was said by the then Lord Mayor of London when he spoke after the 1953 floods. At that time a civil defence corps had been set up under the 1948 Act, and that corps was effective. In 1953 the Lord Mayor said:

"The emergency proved the value of having thousands of trained workers capable of dealing with the many human and physical problems that have to be solved and dealt with in a disaster of any kind. Britain has never lacked volunteer workers in any emergency that may arise, and splendid work is carried out by all, but organisation and training more than double their effectiveness. The exacting work carried out by civil defence in that great disaster tested methods on control, rescue and welfare to the utmost, and has shown they are sound.

That was so in 1953, but it is definitely not so today. I trust that in supporting this Bill the House will enable us to move back to a position where we have a nationwide emergency service for the protection of our people.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on his speech and on the sensible Bill that he has introduced. I welcome it, and I was grateful for the opportunity to add my name to the list of sponsors, which is an all-party one.

Emergency planning for peace and wartime disasters has many common ingredients, so the Bill's all-hazards approach must be commended. Homelessness resulting from flood or fire is every bit as tragic as homelessness caused by high explosive attacks, and both must tackled promptly and efficiently. I deliberately avoid using the comparison of nuclear attack, because it is too horrific to contemplate. I speak as one who visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the winter of 1945–46.

As the hon. Member for Upminster asked bluntly, are we adequately prepared for a serious accident at one of our nuclear power stations? I believe that we are probably more prepared than he gave us credit for, because the armed services, the fire brigade and the ambulance services have some training in this regard. However, we must pay more attention to the matter. We must also consider a hydroelectric dam burst or a chemical explosion such as that at Flixborough. Examples from other countries must make us look to our laurels. There were two huge examples of that, the most recent one in Italy.

Despite the magnificent standards of service provided by the fire brigade, police and ambulance service, there is a need for trained civil protection volunteers in each community and the provision of effective community emergency plans. Therefore, we should all welcome the all-hazards approach of the Bill, which was earlier advocated in the "Civil Defence Briefing Guide", 'which I recommended to hon. Members if they have not already read it. It has been updated by a leafet entitled "Civil Protection: The Way Ahead". As the original guide said:

"Effective civil defence can be created only if it has the support of the general public. This requires a major effort in public relations."

I am sure that that is right.

The rationale should be presented as the need to plan for the protection and recovery of all individuals from the effects of all hazards in peace or in war. The case for civil protection is valid, even without reference to the nuclear deterrent. It is important for local authorities, especially county councils, to identify all areas that could be affected by a major peacetime disaster and for the Government to ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced for that purpose.

I speak in the debate before the Minister, but I understand that the Government are allowing the 75 per cent. grant that goes to local authorities to be used for dual purposes in peace or wartime defence. However, I should be happier if the Home Office met the full cost of local staffing. That plea comes from the chief executive of the Isle of Wight county council, Mr. John Horsnell, who may be well known as the chairman of the SOLACE committee of the local authorities and an expert on civil defence. It would help my county council, which I led until recently, especially at budget time. When cuts are the order of the day, this becomes a controversial issue. But if the cost of staffing could be met fully, that argument could be nicely avoided.

For my sins, I am a rapporteur to the Council of Europe. I am conducting an inquiry with the Conservative Member of the European Parliament for York, Mr. McMillan Scott, on disasters affecting our heritage. He has a special interest because of the terrible fire in York Minster. There have been some terrible fires affecting buildings of considerable historic interest in recent years, including one in Luxembourg and two at Trinity college, Dublin. At the beginning of December, we held a hearing in Brussels.

We hope that the inquiry will produce reports back to the Council of Europe and the European Parliament in which we can work out a common code of guidance, not just for the European Community, but for the 21 states of the Council of Europe. We are looking a long way ahead, but we heard evidence from experts not just on fires, which are the main disasters in Britain, but on earthquakes and volcano eruptions, which are especially centred in Italy. It is a move in the right direction. If we can put our house in order and obtain a common approach in Europe, civil defence will fall into line. It should be part of the common code of guidance.

The hon. Member for Upminster has said all that should be said on this issue, and no doubt other hon. Members will contribute to the debate. I congratulate him on introducing the Bill and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on his efforts in this area. I would not have been in the House today, speaking as I have, were it not for his persuasion. I wish the Bill a speedy passage on to the statute book.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and those who have supported him on promoting the Bill, which I hope will have a speedy passage through the House and will be implemented by local authorities at the earliest opportunity.

As my hon. Friend said, civil defence stems from the united efforts of many organisations during the second world war, including the wardens, the auxiliary fire services, the Home Guard, the WRVS, the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance service, and, of course, the police. After the war, individuals joined the civil defence service and worked towards keeping that organisation on the top line. That was confirmed by the 1948 Act and administered thereafter by county councils. I was the civil defence commissioner for south-west Scotland, so I saw the outstanding work of the civil defence service in training and preparation and the first-class operational headquarters for my area. There were regular visits to Taymouth castle, the Scottish civil defence training college, and members of the civil defence force were highly trained and well qualified to do the work.

Civil defence worked well during the 1950s and 1960s and was available, as my hon. Friend said, for action in civil emergencies. We had close co-operation with other local authorities. South-west Scotland co-operated closely with what used to be Cumberland county council. I have no doubt that, had there been a disaster, the force would have been efficient and effective. As my hon. Friend said, one never knows how horrific a disaster can be. Sadly, my constituency had the worst train disaster in the United Kingdom—at Gretna Green during the first world war—when more than 400 soldiers were killed on their way to the front. Had there been an effective civil defence service at the time, I am sure that some lives would have been saved. Many of those poor soldiers were burned in the wooden carriages. Had an effective fire service been near at hand, many lives could have been saved.

My hon. Friend was right to highlight the possibility, although we wish never to see it, of a major air disaster or, indeed, a major fire, flood or other natural disaster. We all agree to an extent that the value of civil defence has been reduced slightly by the increasing importance of the public protection services—the fire brigade, ambulance service and police — which are highly efficient. The Health Service also provides first-class protection.

We need to highlight the advantage of having a very large number of highly trained volunteers who are prepared to give their time and to take over responsibility at the shortest possible notice. That is crucially important after any kind of accident, even if it is only a car accident. Somebody needs to be on the spot to take responsibility —whether it be a member of the public or somebody who has been trained in civil defence—so that all of the rescue services can be brought into action as quickly as possible.

Civil defence is vital throughout the country. It is astonishing that some local authorities want to declare nuclear-free zones and to ban civil defence from their territory. They are behaving irresponsibly towards their electors. The nuclear bomb is another matter. Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), I, too, went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. I accept that civil defence could do very little to mitigate that kind of disaster. However, it might be able to mitigate the effects of such a disaster on the fringes of the affected area. Civil defence help after a disaster of that kind would be of great value.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the horror of Hiroshima was due to the enormous fire that raged through the city and that its enormity was largely because the houses were made of wood? Therefore, the effect of the fire after the dropping of the nuclear bomb was quite different from the effect of a fire if a nuclear bomb were to be dropped on a city that was constructed of more robust material.

That is true, When I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki I found that there were acres and acres of complete devastation, with occasionally a concrete building still standing above the wreckage. Fire was the serious result of high-explosive bombardment in other cities that I visited in Japan—for example, in Tokyo and Yokohama — apart from the nuclear bombardment.

I believe firmly in the nuclear deterrent. It means that we shall never have to face the horrors of a nuclear war. We must bear that in mind when considering civil defence. Civil defence will be of primary value when dealing with civil catastrophes. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster highlighted the civil catastrophes at Bhopal, Seveso and Mexico City. I would add the disaster last year at Bradford City football ground. No more could have been done, in the time available, to save more lives. We were impressed by the effectiveness of the public protection service. It was able to come very speedily to the aid of those who were involved in that frightful fire.

One must also commend the large number of people who give voluntary service to our nation. They are members of the Territorial Army, other reserve forces, the Red Cross, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and many other important voluntary services that do such wonderful work in this country. There are many enthusiastic people who gladly give up their time to learn about civil defence and play their part in preparing for any catastrophe, however, unlikely that might be.

The Bill is important. I hope it will persuade those local authorities who have decided to opt out of civil defence to reverse their decision and to provide the civil defence services that are so urgently required. The Bill ought to be given a speedy passage. I hope that the Government will be as generous as they can in providing financial help to local authorities for this purpose. Therefore I commend to the House my hon. Friend's Bill.

I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on introducing his Bill. I am happy to be associated with it as a sponsor. I wish to pay tribute to the work of the old civil defence corps, which has long since been disbanded. It provided a most valuable service both during and after the war. It ensured that the idea of civil defence was retained in the mind of the public. This was necessary because at that time there was a great fear that war could break out again. That kind of service is typified in many of our voluntary organisations. It is based upon hard work and dedication. Service is given without any financial return or without any thought of financial return. There is also a willingness to undertake sometimes dangerous work without thought for the individual's own safety.

I hope that the Bill will have a safe passage through the House. It will have important effects. It will help the public to become aware of the importance of becoming civil defence volunteers. More people are desperately needed to take an interest in the subject. Although certain local authorities have adopted a negative attitude and have not organised themselves properly for civil defence, others have done so extremely well. I am very happy to be able to tell the House that the North Yorkshire county council has well advanced plans for the implementation of a local voluntary civil defence service. They should be viewed by other local authorities in the context of what would be involved if there were a civil disaster in their area, or if the threat of war should arise. This country takes matters of this kind very seriously and it is well organised to deal with disasters. When there is a disaster we have the means at our disposal to deal with it. That is why the Bill is important. It means that local authorities will be able to draw upon the full resources that are available to them to deal with an emergency.

I do not wish to tempt misfortune by adding additional disasters to the list of disasters that have already been so well described. It is possible to go down a path of endless horrors and to cite what has happened in other countries. For example, the hurricane that swept along the east coast of the United States posed a major problem. Over a million people were evacuated from New York because it was anticipated that the hurricane would strike the city. Fortunately, we do not experience hurricanes of that severity, but occasionally there is a great flood or another weather catastrophe that imposes an enormous strain on both individuals and the services upon which they rely. That is where volunteers will be helpful.

At this time of the year, with its "cold wave", it is rather pleasant to think of the 1976 heat wave. There was a serious fire threat in addition to the threat posed by the shortage of water. The water boards handled the problem well by putting in standpipes. Organisations arranged to deliver buckets of water to old people's houses and flats. Such an emergency could arise again and local authorities would be able to act more easily with the assistance of civil defence volunteers.

A noxious substance could infiltrate into the water supplies and people would have to be advised not to drink the water. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, only a short time ago, this problem occurred in the Palace of Westminster when a secretary drank water that had been contaminated by cleaning fluid. She was unwell for a period, but I am glad to say that she was not incapacitated too long. If that incident in the Palace of Westminster were blown up on a wider scale — with chemicals from factories seeping into the water supplies—it would be necessary to mobilise all the volunteers at our disposal to advise people on the action to take.

A number of people are rightly worried that, one day, there might be a rabies scare in Britain. It has been said that the Channel tunnel link could result in infected rats or dogs coming through the tunnel and starting a rabies epidemic. That is going too far. The Government are keen to ensure that every measure is taken to prevent that, and I am confident that that will be done. However, if there were a rabies outbreak, it would be helpful if local authorities could mobilise civil defence authorities to warn people what they should look out for and to work in the areas where the outbreak has occurred to ensure that any carrier of the disease that could be identified was immediately destroyed.

I shall not delay the House with further examples of the emergencies that could arise because they have been well put already. The House understands that there is a need for volunteers to be utilised to assist during these civil emergencies.

Training will be important. It is incumbent on local authorities to extend the scope of training to include the actions that volunteers will have to take if they are brought in to deal with a civil emergency. I hope that the Government will dig into the public purse to find the funds necessary to assist in this training to ensure that it is conducted adequately, comprehensively and nationally. These disasters can occur anywhere in the United Kingdom.

I very much hope that the Bill will be passed and that we can ensure that as many people as possible are involved in assisting those who could be affected should any awful disaster occur.

I should like to join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on introducing such s sensible Bill. He is an experienced hand in enjoying success in the ballot for private Member's Bills. He has obviously learnt that one has a greater chance of success if a Bill is not too long. This is a short Bill, but it contains what is needed. Although I have recommended my hon. Friend to add a schedule in Committee, I hasten to say that I would withdraw that suggestion if it were to delay the legislation's progress.

I intervened during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster to ask him whether our civil defence services in their present state could cope with an aggravated discharge from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria. My hon. Friend said that he felt that the existing civil defence network was not adequate to deal with that eventuality. That is worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that we shall never suffer a direct nuclear attack by another country if we remain armed with our own nuclear deterrent—I fully share that view—but there is always the chance that an accident will occur in peacetime involving dangerous nuclear material, such as that reprocessed at Sellafield. For a long time, a large public inquiry has been taking place into the new PWR nuclear generating station at Sizewell. Like most hon. Members, I recognise that Britain has to have a large nuclear generating capacity. We probably lag behind our European competitors. I think that, with a big nuclear capacity, we would be far less likely to suffer aggravated pollution of the atmosphere, the effects of acid rain and all the other problems.

The Sizewell plant was to change the character of British nuclear generation. Instead of generating electricity by a well-proven Magnox or AGR nuclear generator, which have been safe and effective, Sizewell has been engaged in an entirely new venture, switching over to PWR —the type of reactor that is used around the world because of its relative cheapness. That reactor does not have the same safety record that Magnox and the AGR enjoy. We must always be prepared in peacetime for civil emergencies of any type. In referring to the manner in which we generate electricity by nuclear means, I was seeking to point out that a change in policy from AGR and Magnox to PWR could bring added dangers. Many other unforeseen emergencies could arise in peacetime. After all, if we could foresee those emergencies, they would not be emergencies. We cannot foresee what natural or manmade disasters will befall us in peacetime.

I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is such a beaver for work, should consider introducing another civil defence Bill. The present civil defence legislation dates back to 1948. The Civil Defence Act 1948 was concerned merely with getting people into shelters. More emphasis should be placed on the fact that the Bill, and any new civil defence legislation that my hon. Friend the Minister introduces, are designed to prepare not only for the unlikely emergency of a nuclear attack but for the far more likely peacetime emergencies. That legislation would perform a useful role on the statute book. The Bill would be widely supported on both sides of the House and it is common sense that it should be introduced today.

I should like to examine the Bill in more detail. Provisions for civil defence in this country were included in the Conservative party election manifesto in 1983. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminister said, in that manifesto, the Government intended to amend the Civil Defence Act 1948

"to enable civil defence funds to be used in safeguarding against peacetime emergencies as well as against hostile attacks".

We have to a certain extent modernised the role of civil defence by introducing new orders. However, the Civil Defence Act 1948 is out of date and I believe, in tandem with my right hon. Friend the Member for Upminister, that now is the time to introduce a new Act of Parliament.

My hon. Friend referred to some of the climatic hazards and extremes of weather which have occurred in Britain over a short period. An examination of the climatic extremes during the 11-year period to which he referred, from 1968 to 1978 inclusive, reveals a great many incidents. For instance, between 1968 and 1978, many deaths were caused by gales or floods, some of which my hon. Friend referred to, and there were a number of gales and sea floods. The highest number of people killed in any one incident was 28 in central and eastern England in 1976, when 3,800 buildings were damaged. On 13 January 1978, some 26 people were killed on the east coast of Lincolnshire and in Kent, and there were 22 deaths in 1968 in the west of Scotland and Glasgow.

A projection of these statistics over an 11-year period gives an idea of the pattern of incidents which the country has suffered between 1968 and 1978. The country is not actually prone to attack; rather it is exposed to hazards from the environment and its extremes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster referred to the east coast floods which took place ten or 15 years before the 11-year period I have just been talking about. Many parts of the east coast were levelled and the spring tides came into Lincolnshire and parts of the Fen country. I remember that incident, as I was sent to the east coast to try to retrieve what remained of some property belonging to the company I worked for. I took a gang of men and we tried to find what had been left of four hotels which the company owned. The hotels had entirely disappeared from sight,, they had been razed to the ground and all we could trace in each case were the cellars, which were filled with sand but still contained intact bottles of whisky. However, there was no trace left of the hotels or of many houses in the towns affected in Lincolnshire; there were just sand dunes where buildings had been.

That pattern of floods in the 1950s again occurred without warning and with extreme ferocity. If one examines with a magnifying glass a much smaller pattern of hazard events during the winter of 1977–78 caused by climatic conditions, one finds that between the beginning of 1977 and the middle of 1978 there were a number of blizzards in which many people were killed. There was a severe blizzard on 29 January 1978 in north-east Scotland where four people were killed and on 13 January 1978 there were gales and floods on the Lincolnshire coast which resulted in the deaths of 26 people. Again, there was a pattern all over the country of natural climatic hazards.

Having discussed the possibility of nuclear accident and severe hazards of extremes weather, it may be considered farcical to mention the hazards that can be experienced on Britain's motorways. Nevertheless, if one had been in, or witnessed either on television or at first hand, the effects of a multiple pile-up on some sections of the motorway system which are prone to such occurrences, one would not dismiss such incidents lightly. There have been frequent occasions when the motorway services have been over-stretched.

Our motorway emergency services do and have done a splendid job. However, as more and more sections of motorway are improved or opened, as in the case of the M25 orbital motorway around London, the hazards of major motorway pile-ups involving many vehicles are likely to increase. The effects of yesterday's accidents may be trivial, but due to the extra speed and the larger volume of traffic, the effects of accidents tomorrow may be more severe.

I hope that the Bill will not ignore the effects on the civil population of major motorway pile-ups. There have been many major pile-ups which have had tragic results and some have involved up to 100 vehicles. I cannot foresee those accidents becoming less numerous or of less concern to the nation. If the Bill can recognise, without it being enlarged or lengthened too much, the particular concern of hon. Members with motorways in their constituencies, I am sure that the House would be grateful to the hon. Member for Upminster for introducing the Bill.

If one were to take a magnifying glass and examine the pattern of road behaviour over a two-year period and in particular look at the fog-prone areas, one would find that the number of motorway accidents is considerable. Over a two-year period in those areas, no fewer than 14 different major accidents occurred. Of those accidents, two involved 50 vehicles and both occurred around Christmas time. Another two accidents occurred at the same spot at Crawley, one involving 100 vehicles and the other 208 vehicles. There was another large accident, again on the Ml, that involved 48 vehicles, again at Christmas. In the two-year period on the MI, there were five major accidents and over the motorway network as a whole, there was a continual pattern of accidents which caused so much distress, financial loss and bereavement that the House cannot ignore them.

There is another hazard to which the Bill could relate. My hon. Friend might mention it in Committee. There are many plants and factories all over Britain making lethal substances. The number is growing. The number of vehicles which transport such substances is growing. I am not thinking of vehicles which carry active nuclear material; I am thinking of vehicles carrying toxic and unpleasant chemicals.

One does not need to have a vivid imagination to realise what could happen if a large vehicle carrying an unpleasant and toxic liquid were to have an accident which caused serious damage to the vehicle and resulted in the load catching fire or leaking in the middle of a city. Most such vehicles skirt city centres. We must rely largely on the honour of the driver and the company to do that and not to take a short cut through a city late at night. Drivers of such toxic loads, for whom I have the greatest admiration, do not take such short cuts. Where they can, they go round a city, but late at night there must be a temptation to cut corners and go through city centres.

An accident could occur. Is there any way in which the Bill could cope with the hazards which might arise when dangerous and explosive items are carried by commercial vehicles around or through our city centres?

I shall not go into the detail of the sites of such plants; suffice it to say that no fewer than 28 major plants are listed in England and Wales alone which produce or handle exceptionally toxic and dangerous substances. My hon. Friend should take them into account.

The Bill should also relate to major railway accidents. There has been a pattern of such accidents and emergencies, some involving many deaths. Between 1965 and 1984, there was a chain of train accidents involving five or more passenger deaths. With some of those accidents, the House has said that it was remarkable that more people did not lose their lives.

There was the crash at Moorgate when 42 people died. Many experts thought that it was remarkable, and only due to the fantastic work of the professional emergency services, that the death toll was not much higher. Will my hon. Friend look at the record of train accidents to see whether there is some way in which the Bill can help?

My hon. Friend is correct. I agree with what he said about the dangers of transporting toxic waste by road. Does he recognise that a rail accident can cause similar problems? In my constituency, four weeks ago, there was a derailment when a train carrying several tankers of petroleum spirit discharged about 40,000 gallons of petroleum spirit at a village in the middle of my constituency. If it were not for the emergency services, there could well have been a terrible disaster. My hon. Friend is correct to highlight that matter.

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. I am glad to hear that he, like me, has profound admiration for our emergency services and the splendid work that they do. They cope, but they could be overwhelmed by the size of an event.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that our civil defence network is on its toes and could help out at a large incident if the professional services were overwhelmed. Civil defence could provide a valuable network to fall back on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster referred to the civil defence orders. They are relatively new. The House may be interested to know why it was necessary to introduce them. Under the Civil Defence Act 1948, local authorities were required to exercise the obligations laid upon them in the 11 clauses of that Act. Unfortunately, in 1982 and 1983 many local authorities, for one reason or another, were not discharging their duties. One misguided reason was that some local authorities thought that the Act and the orders related only to wartime measures. The Bill is geared to peacetime emergencies and catastrophes.

New civil defence orders were introduced in 1983, because in 1982 many local authorities had refused to take part in a Government exercise called Hard Rock. The exercise was abandoned. Some local authorities did not fulfil their obligation to make plans to cope with a civil defence emergency. Four sets of regulations introduced in 1983 increased local authorities' civil defence responsibilities and, in some cases, improved civil defence grants. County councils and the GLC had a duty to review plans for the continuation of a number of essential services, in war, to arrange civil defence training, to participate in training and to provide emergency centres for civil defence direction. All local authorities affected by the Civil Defence Act 1948 must comply with any direction given to them by the Government.

Some local authorities were especially unco-operative before 1983 and to a certain extent after 1983. These authorities have not gone along with Government plans to put civil defence on a modern and effective footing. The Government have increased grants from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. for civil defence communications, equipment, training and exercises, and the payments to staffs and volunteers. Despite that, there has been a reluctance on the part of some local authorities to adopt Government plans.

The Government were careful when changing the grant regulations. The previous requirement on local authority staffs to participate actively in civil defence was dropped. Local authorities are no longer required to make plans for organising the evacuation of the population — that is done by central Government.

Those local authorities which have been reluctant to cooperate with the Government have been so because they did not agree with civil defence against a nuclear attack. They thought—I think wrongly—that there is no such thing as personal civil defence against a nuclear attack. Such local authorities felt. and some still feel, that their total measure of civil defence is to erect a notice at their city limits which states that it is a nuclear-free zone. I hope my hon. Friend's Bill makes progress on to the statute book and that it is made clear that the Bill intends to cope with unexpected catastrophes which may occur in peacetime. If my hon. Friend can put as much emphasis as possible on this feature, the Bill can and should make great progress.

I should like to refer to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985—on the Committee on which I had the good fortune to sit for a few months. We had long debates on part I of the Act. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 relate to emergency orders and the contamination of food. Section 1 gave the Minister power to make emergency orders when a chemical or industrial accident had occurred which could pollute foodstuffs and other materials. We had long debates on how section 1 would be activated in the event of an industrial accident when large stocks of food were thought to be contaminated. We also had considerable co-operation and discussion — which is relevant to my hon. Friend's Bill — with the local authorities on how their own teams of civil defence workers would help to operate part I of the Act when emergency orders have been made.

I wish my hon. Friend's Bill every success, and I am sure it will reach the statute book at an early date.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminister (Sir N. Bonsor) not only on doing well in the ballot yet again—many of us will envy him—but also on being so kind as to agree to put forward this measure on civil defence. I am also grateful to him for his kind remarks.

As the House is aware, I have spent much of the past three and a quarter years trying to obtain all-party consensus on this important matter. I hope that we are now approaching that happy position. The fact that my hon. Friend's Bill enjoys support from all parts of the House suggests that we are moving in that direction. I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Tony Hibbert and the Trebah Trust for their enormous work, largely at their own expense, in promoting civil defence. The trust has received no commercial or any other backing and is not even a registered charity. Those who have contributed in this area have done a great service to the whole community. We do not appreciate how many people provide support and assistance for many different causes without thought to themselves but at cost to themselves. Such people spend large amounts of their own money attempting to alert us to what we are inclined to take for granted.

It is helpful to mention the all-party support that was achieved a year ago in another place. If one reads the extremely good debate that took place there on 6 February 1985 one notices the valuable speeches in support of civil defence made by Lord Renton, Lord Graham and Lord Mayhew. I consider civil defence as civil protection, because that is precisely what it is.

The speeches of hon. Members this morning have been thoughtful and helpful. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has adopted, right from the start, a sensible approach to civil protection. I should not be too surprised at that as he is a fellow chartered surveyor. I fully support his request for 100 per cent. funding from the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, will not be surprised by my support for this form of funding, since I have long supported it. Other national services such as the Territorial Army receives 100 per cent. funding. We must consider such funding not only for the additional duties involved in civil protection but across the whole spectrum of services. Civil protection merits 100 per cent. support and there is no reason why it cannot be arranged through the rate support grant without additional cost to the Exchequer. The public has a right to this protection.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight also mentioned that he had visited, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately after 1945. That must have been a terrible experience for both hon. Members. Such experience helps the House to appreciate these situations much more clearly. Both hon. Members have made valuable contributions to the debate this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) has published a book on civil defence and it formed part of my introduction to the subject. We therefore respect his contributions to the debate, and on previous occasions, because of his depth of knowledge.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) rightly highlighted other aspects of civil defence relating to the problems on our motorways, and roads through our towns and villages. The type of materials now being transported raises considerable cause for concern. Not long ago there was a terrible accident in France involving a petrol tanker and a holiday camp site. Although we tend to close our eyes to the possibility of such tragedies, they occur, and in those cases the emergency services come into their own.

We are fortunate in the extremely professional way in which our fire and ambulance services operate and the dedicated work of the men and women who work in them. We tend to rely on them. An enormous emergency, such as there would be if an oil refinery were affected, has a rippling effect. When I visited an oil refinery on the south coast some years ago I was told that such an emergency would affect the fire services up to and including Luton as they would provide back-up for the various fire services which would move in to deal with the emergency on the south coast. That shows that we call on a wide network to deal with that type of emergency, and in those circumstances we must look towards volunteers who are able and willing to provide the extra help that is so important.

Bhopal has already been mentioned, where 2,000 people died and 100,000 were taken ill. That was terrible. Even in the best of circles, and despite the most sophisticated technology, there was a terrible accident in the United States. That shows that one cannot be too careful, and that things go wrong unexpectedly. We must always allow for that. The consequences of such an emergency can be devastating.

What could or might have happened at Sellafield has also been mentioned today, and the position on Three Mile Island some years ago is particularly relevant to that. I would not wish to turn the clock back and do away with some of the few advantages of nuclear energy in providing atomic power, but we must be prepared to deal with any emergency that may arise from it.

A terrible accident took place at Mississauga, where 218,000 people had to be evacuated at short notice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned in his comprehensive speech. He mentioned that the after-effects of the Flixborough disaster continued for three months. Such matters are brought to our notice, and the general public expect politicians to consider them because that is our job, and to make adequate provision for their safety and protection. That is exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve.

In 1983, the Humber estuary was contaminated by oil pollution. It took 15 days to deal with the oil spillage, during which the emergency communication network was used to co-ordinate activity from the county emergency centre in Hull. Many civil defence volunteers were involved in monitoring beaches, and volunteers from Raynet, a voluntary amateur radio group, provided communications at beach level. The group provided extremely valuable assistance on that occasion. That shows what use can and should be made of civil emergency volunteers.

In December 1985 Leeds suffered from the loss of its water supply. There was a fracture of a major water main which was carrying water from a reservoir near Leeds to a local treatment plant and 250,000 consumers were deprived of water. The Army provided water tankers to carry water to supply points around the affected parts of the city. The west Yorkshire county planning officer was alerted and arranged for Raynet volunteers to accompany each tanker to enable close central control of the distribution of water. The operation continued for more than three days and involved 53 Raynet volunteers. That was yet another case when the civil protection system was used to the advantage of the community at large.

Those various examples show clearly how the House acknowledges the existence of a demand for the Bill. I, together with many others, wish it a speedy passage to the statute book, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the matter to the notice of the House.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on introducing a Bill which is practical in its purpose and visionary in its foresight. I fear that over the years civil defence has had a somewhat tarnished image. It is a lacklustre subject in the eyes of many people, and many of the authorities responsible have approached it in a less than professional way.

The Bill is a milestone of a change in that image. The title, Civil Protection in Peacetime Bill, shows that civil defence is not a response to a wartime threat so much as an all-hazards approach to problems and disasters which arise and affect the whole civil population. The Bill goes a long way towards burnishing the past lacklustre image of civil defence.

It is a worthy, noble and visionary cause, because civil protection is a humanitarian response to disasters and problems affecting the civil population. It exists to save life and limb, to reduce suffering, and to give help and succour in major disasters, not merely those which arise through warfare. The Bill helps to re-establish public confidence, support and credibility in civil defence in peacetime.

It is extraordinary that some local authorities and public figures—largely on the Left—have derided civil defence in the past. Neutral countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden, take it seriously. The shelters required by law, and the provision which individual families must make in their homes, suggest a responsible approach by the authorities and a responsible response from the citizens. The civil population recognises its responsibility, directed by the Government who protect its freedom and neutrality and provide proper defence.

In approaching the subject in a new way, we must recognise that while the primary responsibility for civil protection is placed on local authorities, it is not solely their responsibility. Public authorities, Government Departments, emergency services, and, indeed, industry, are also responsible. All those elements must co-ordinate their response to the problems. threats and hazards which surround us.

We learn from answers to parliamentary questions that the Ministry of Defence has recognised the problems that could arise from the nuclear electronic-magnetic pulse—NEMP. However, there is little recognition in the public service at large, for example in the Health Service and industry, of what the disastrous effects of NEMP could be.

We have seen from the approach of many local authorities and individuals that civil defence is seen to be in conflict with the disarmament movement, or, to put it more precisely, the disarmament movement has found a target in civil defence in the past. We must try to disabuse people who think that there is a natural conflict. Civil defence is complementary to disarmament just as much as it is for those who believe in armament to protect ourselves against nuclear attack.

Therefore, we need an all-party all-element approach —a co-ordinated approach to the problem. Those local authorities who display nuclear-free zone signs are being contemptuous, and that is no way to respond to the real hazards which exist. That is simply a way of showing utter and complete contempt for the real needs of those that the authorities are there to serve. I hope that the Bill will do a great deal towards re-establishing in the public mind the need to follow through those thoughts to their logical end, to combat those who seek to ridicule any form of civil defence or protection.

Perhaps one of the greatest schemes which has been initiated in recent years for the safety of London is the Thames barrier, yet those authorities in London which support the Thames barrier find that they cannot bring themselves to give any support for the civilian population in their area in other forms of all-hazards protection.

The Bill goes a great way towards changing attitudes. It will establish a new approach which should be recognised by all parties and all authorities, of whatever political persuasion. I am delighted to be one of the Bill's sponsors. I wish it a speedy course through the House and a speedy arrival upon the statute book. I commend it to the House.

I join in congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on bringing forward the Bill, especially because it permits rather than instructs local authorities. There can be a tendency, especially in private Members' Bills, to load something else on to local authorities as a statutory duty. That does not help relations between Parliament and local government, or relations between local Members of Parliament and local government.

The Bill, and the movement towards civil protection, will only work with public support. People must believe that it is necessary and want to do it and not have to be instructed. That is the case that we must make.

There is a great difference between a single peacetime disaster on which all resources can be concentrated for the necessary time, with aid summoned in from neighbouring counties and towns, and a general attack in war, when, at the very least, the scope for mutual support would be much reduced. One must recognise that difference.

Some years ago, when I was leader of the London borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, civil defence and civil protection became an issue again. We looked. and as leader I looked, at what was on the books. The answer was very little. We had to start practically from scratch. We did not get much help from the Home Office.

The starting point was civil defence, and the worst scenario is nuclear war. Like everybody else in politics, I had read bits and pieces, but it was much more difficult to nail down the dangers that would have to be faced if certain weapons were detonated at various distances from the town. We could get no information whatever out of the Government. Luckily, London has a large United States embassy and library and the staff there were tremendously helpful. A London borough had to get from the American embassy information on which to base its civil defence plans. If that seems slightly absurd now, it seemed slightly absurd then. I do not know whether the information is not available on grounds of secrecy but it is difficult to make plans without knowing what must be dealt with.

We held various exercises in civil defence and civil protection. It might be a comment on the relationship between senior officers in local government and elected members that the main aim of the controller seemed to be to dispatch elected members, preferably into a heavily irradiated zone, to get them out of the exercise at a fairly early stage, making his life easier.

In wartime, the controller has draconian powers. For civil protection the situation is different. Training is important. Unless people have been in the situation, they do not know the mental problems that might arise. There is the shock and mental strain of seeing familiar surroundings devastated, and it is only training and discipline that can overcome that. Without that, people will be shocked into submission.

One of the exercises that we carried out was to discover the location of heavy equipment and emergency supplies in the borough that might be needed at short notice. Telephone networks might be out of commission for various reasons and people would need to know where to go to get hold of tents, and heavy civil equipment such as bulldozers, quickly. We talked to various companies which had such equipment so that we were ready to go. The same thing was true for food stocks.

One of the scenarios that, as a London borough, we had to think of was the flooding of London because the barrier had not been erected. I think that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was also involved in local government in London at that time. Kingston-upon-Thames might not have been heavily flooded, but the water and sewerage systems would have been out of commission. We would have had to act as a reception point for people comimg from the flooded parts of London. Those people had to be put into schools and under canvas. Chemicals would be needed to produce sufficient clean water. We needed to know where to get sandbags from in an emergency and we needed to know where to get food stocks to feed the people.

If London had ever flooded, it would have been a nightmare. It was estimated that within 24 hours we could have had as many casualties as the whole of the United Kingdom in the six years of the second world war. That was the scale of the disaster. Thank heavens the barrier is now there, because I am not convinced that if there had been a disaster London would have coped.

Another disaster that might have to be dealt with would be that of a jumbo jet coming down, perhaps on a high street on a Saturday afternoon. We know that in wartime the controller takes charge locally. In peacetime it is not at all clear what would happen. We do not know who would be in charge in any given situation. There is usually co-operation, but we cannot depend on that.

During the war, one of the most bitter arguments took place in Coventry between the civil authorities, in the shape of the mayor and council, and the army. When Coventry was devastated, the army wanted to impose martial law immediately. One can say that the army usually wants to impose martial law to deal with such a situation. It led to bitter relations there and that was often true elsewhere. After 40 years, there tends to be a romantic haze and people gloss over some of the real difficulties that showed up in such emergencies. Those would be there, be they civil or wartime emergencies. If no forward planning or structure is laid down before the problems are reached, it is almost impossible to cope with them in the middle of an emergency because it is then too late.

There is another nightmare, touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir John Farr), which came to light only by accident. Luckily, one of the members of the council understood what all the signs on the back of heavy lorries meant when they are carrying dangerous substances. He saw two lorries that had collided on the edge of the town. They had only grazed each other. However, being a chemist, he rapidly worked out what would have happened if the chemicals had mixed: we would have had a massive poisonous gas problem. The polite title nowadays is "noxious fumes", but ultimately it comes down to poison gas. Imagine such a problem on a heavy shopping day—and it could happen. We have to think such problems through. The difficulty is that we do not like to think of our familiar surroundings devastated. However, if we do not prepare beforehand, when the problem hits it is too late and we face total confusion. We have to work through the worst scenario from beginning to end, however unpleasant some of the choices might be, and that comes down to training and being prepared.

Other hon. Members have pointed out that other countries are much better prepared than we are. Switzerland, Sweden and the Soviet Union can all be cited. They have organisations, not only for civil defence in wartime but which can also double up for peacetime emergencies and they prove themselves to be more than worth while. I believe that we should copy that example. If we do not, sooner or later there will be an incident in this country and the system will not be able to cope because we have not done the contingency planning. If that happens, the people and the media will ask why we were not prepared. It will be the politicians who will have to answer that question, and there will be no excuses. That means that we have to argue that resources which people would rather see spent on immediate things, have to be paid out on an insurance premium that we hope we will never have to use. However, if we do have to use it, we will need it desperately.

I would like to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on his customary and regular good fortune in the ballot. This is a worthwhile piece of legislation, which I think will commend itself to both sides of the House.

I have particular reasons for wanting to see the Bill on the statute book. Some of my hon. Friends have already referred to disasters which have occurred in the past where legislation of this kind, had it been on the statute book, would have assisted in dealing with the emergency. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), referred to Flixborough. Before the boundaries were changed for the parliamentary constituencies before the last general election, I had the privilege of representing the village of Flixborough. Although the disaster at Flixborough occurred in 1975, some four years before I came to the House, the issue of safety was very much in the minds of all the electors in the old parliamentary constituency of Brigg and Scunthorpe. During the 1979 election campaign, many people asked me what sort of provision I would commend to the House if I were elected. I undertook that if I were ever lucky in a private Members' ballot I would contemplate the sort of legislation which my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster has brought before us today.

The disaster at Flixborough had a devastating effect on my old constituency. That effect still lingers in the fears of people to this day. One has only to go to that village and look at the old houses and brick buildings which were built in the early part of this century. Every roof of those houses is brand new. Although they have been on now for 10 years, one can see the sharpness of the tiles on the roof. One has only to look around the village to realise that all the roofs of the houses were blown off. Not only was there loss of life at the plant, but on that fateful Saturday afternoon in June 1975 hut, there was devastation and a complete community was wrecked by fear. I know that Mr. John Ellis, who was the Member for that constituency at the time, would be the first, and I would be the second, to pay tribute to the emergency services which did a tremendous job when the disaster overtook Flixborough and the area around Scunthorpe. If the Bill had been on the statute book then, I think that it might have been possible to have an even speedier reaction to that disaster.

The disaster will for ever be in the mind of everybody in south Humberside. It made a terrible impression on the local community, as far as the town of Scunthorpe some six or seven miles away. Windows were blown out of many of the shops in Scunthorpe and one needed to have some provision to deal with the consequences of the disaster even though those consequences were felt several miles away. We tend to forget that, when a disaster occurs, it is not only at the site of the disaster that we need to ensure that arrangements are in hand, but we must see that there are facilities to deal with whatever problems one might not know about some miles away.

People looking at that thick, black mushroom cloud over Flixborough thought that that was the only place where the problem was. They did not know that houses in surrounding villages had had their roofs blown off, or that people in Scunthorpe were suffering from cuts as a result of broken glass. I think that that is where a Bill of this kind, if enacted, can have a tremendous impact on minimising some of the worst aspects of such disasters.

Sadly, my constituency is situated in a part of the country where much hazardous industrial activity is carried out. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South also mentioned the disaster in 1983 when the oil tanker Sivand discharged a complete cargo of crude oil into the river Humber and into the Humber estuary around my constituency and the oil washed on to the beach at Cleethorpes. Cleethorpes is the prize town in my constituency. It is a tourist town visited by many people, from Scunthorpe, Doncaster, and Sheffield. If that beach is ever damaged in any way, it will make tourism redundant in Cleethorpes. People from Scunthorpe and the surrounding area take a long time to come back to the beach at Cleethorpes, even when it has been cleaned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South rightly drew attention to the excellent co-ordination within county hall on the north bank of the Humber when the disaster was being dealt with. Its results extended beyond the immediate vicinity of Immingham and Cleethorpes, for oil entered the mouth of the Humber, which is tidal as far as the rivers Ouse and Trent. If any oil enters the Humber at the estuary on the tide, it will be washed up as far as the junction of the three great rivers, the Ouse, the Trent and the Humber. Unfortunately, oil damaged wildlife all along the Humber. If the Bill had been on the statute book when the disaster occurred in 1983, the emergency services would have been helped tremendously in carrying out their work.

I am making no complaint about the work of the emergency services, either at Flixborough or when the Sivand disaster occurred, but I am sure that they would be the first to accept any additional provision that might be available from local authorities as part of their civil defence and civil protection arrangements. Local authorities have facilities and statutory duties are set out in the Civil Defence Act 1948 that require local authorities to be prepared in the event of war. However, given the hazardous industries that are located in Britain, and especially in my constituency, it is becoming increasingly likely that we shall have to contend with home-produced disasters rather than a nuclear war. I suspect that more of my constituents will lose their lives through the disasters and accidents that are liable to occur in the sort of industries that are located in my constituency than through war.

I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, (Sir J. Fan) when he was talking about the transportation of hazardous commodities. I drew his attention to the derailment at Barnetby in my constituency four or five weeks ago. Barnetby is a major railway junction in Humberside and it is the station that I use when I make my journeys to the House. Accordingly, I know the station very well. Three major railway lines meet at Barnetby and as the lines are used for a considerable amount of freight activity, there is potential for disaster.

The entire village of Barnetby had to be evacuated when a large train of oil tankers was derailed at 6·30 am. We do not yet know the reason for the derailment. Two of the tankers discharged 40,000 gallons of petroleum spirit. The spirit was being carried from one of the two oil refineries along the bank of the Humber in my constituency. I hope that the House is getting the flavour of the huge amount of hazardous industry which is going on in the area and will understand why those in it will look with pleasure and gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster if his Bill has a safe passage through both House of Parliament.

As I have said, 40,000 gallons of petroleum spirit were discharged at Barnetby. If there had been a spark from a match at that moment, there would have been a most ghastly disaster. Once again, the emergency services carried out a marvellous job. There was a task for the local authority to perform as someone had to be responsible for the orderly evacuation of the village. Some people were unable to return to their homes for several days. A week passed from the moment of the derailment before the fire brigade was able to take away the last tender. A danger confronted the village for a long period. The petrol had seeped into the ground and difficulty was experienced in removing it. Much time and energy was expended in so doing. Much of the spirit was recovered but much was left, and accordingly there was great concern.

Glanford borough council did a marvellous job, along with all the other authorities, but I am sure that it would be the first to say that if it had had the legislative protection that the Bill would provide it would have been able to evacuate Barnetby even more quickly.

Yet another problem will confront my constituents if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has his way. I should add that he will not. I am led to believe that on Tuesday next week, after much dilly-dallying my right hon. Friend will announce the four sites that NIREX, the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Executive, has sent to the Department of the Environment, which it has been sitting on since 8 January. I am prepared to bet my shirt on one of the sites being the South Killingholme area in my constituency. We shall be confronted with the prospect of having a nuclear waste dump in the area.

I have news for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have told my constituents that there will be no nuclear waste disposed of anywhere in my constituency so long as I am their Member of Parliament. My right hon. Friend will have to work out what I mean by that. I have declared my commitment and I intend to carry it out. If in a few years' time, after a public inquiry, a Secretary of State should dare to sign an order allowing a nuclear waste dump to be constructed in my constituency, certain consequences will follow. I advise the House and my constituency to watch this space.

If nuclear waste were to be disposed of in any constituency, the waste would have to be transported to it. It would have to be taken to the dump from where it was being stored. As I have said, I shall make it my business to ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not get his way and does not sign an order allowing a dump to be constructed in my constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said that already enough toxic or hazardous materials are transported throughout the country on motorways. He drew our attention to motorway accidents. Can we begin to imagine what might happen if on the way to my constituency the train that is derailed is not carrying petroleum spirit but nuclear waste? Can one begin to imagine the horror—that I shall ensure will not occur—in south Humberside? What would have happened if that railway train travelling from the oil refinery to the midlands with petroleum spirit had been carrying nuclear waste for a nuclear power station?

There is no railway line into South Killingholme, so lorries would have to used for the final part of the journey. If railways are the better way of transporting such material, one can imagine that mid-week morning a few weeks ago when the train was derailed. If that train had contained nuclear waste bound for my constituency one can imagine the need for an immediate emergency service and the need for such a Bill.

I sincerely hope and pray that the constituencies threatened and blighted by the Secretary of State's announcement, which we await with horror and anxiety, will not have to rely on the Bill alone, because that would not be enough.

I am describing events which have happened and which, if the Secretary of State for the Environment has his way, might again happen in my constituency. That is why the Bill's Second Reading today is so timely. It will concentrate the minds of many people in my constituency who live in constant fear because of the disaster at Flixborough and in connection with the Sivand.

All my constituents will be interested in the Bill's progress. They will be interested to hear what the Minister of State says about the transportation of nuclear waste and how he thinks that the Bill will affect the scenario that I have painted.

The Bill is important. My constituents know what disaster means. They live in the shadow of fear. The two oil refineries in my constituency make a magnificent contribution to the economy. There is no need for the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Energy to tell me about the need for energy or about the need for some constituencies to be responsible for manufacturing energy. My constituency produces a vast amount of the nation's energy. We are responsible for oil refining. My constituency on the Humber estuary and on the edge of the North sea is that part of the country where oil and gas come in.

We are already playing our part in creating the nation's energy. We are not prepared to have nuclear waste dumped on our doorstep. We are making our contribution to the nation's energy reserves and the people living in the shadow of the Conoco and Lindsey oil refineries accept the risks. They accept that a price has to be paid in an element of risk. They will be reassured by the Bill.

I am confident that the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Employment and all those responsible for industries using hazardous materials make safety their highest priority. However, there must be eternal vigilance. We must be prepared in case something goes wrong. I hope that the Bill's provisions will be used only rarely.

No one wants disasters, but as we move into the new age of ever more complicated and dangerous substances in the chemical industry, we must be prepared. We must ensure that we consider the appropriate way to be prepared and responsible, should that need arise.

The buck must always stop with the politicians. We are ultimately responsible for the climate of safety and opinion in the country. The House has obligations towards hazardous industries.

I do not suggest that we close all the hazardous chemical industries or oil refineries. On many occasions I have championed the cause of those industries. I am delighted at the new investment in the Conoco oil refinery, as it constructs a catalytic cracker. A tremendous amount of employment is being generated as a result of that investment, but that catalytic cracker has safety implications. The Health and Safety Executive will want to ensure that the new investment is Al in terms of safety and we, when considering legislation, must ensure that we understand the problems and the disasters with which local authorities might have to deal.

I am not at all against the success and the flourishing development of the chemical industry or the petroleum industry, but with so many industries concentrated on the Humber bay of south Humberside, all along the edge of the northern boundary of my constituency, it is imperative that we recognise that people live in daily fear. A couple of weeks ago, I was at a public meeting in the village of East Halton, to do with the nuclear waste industry. People there can look across from their houses to the oil refinery, and although that refinery has a tremendous safety record, I can understand people's fears.

I have highlighted why this Bill will be welcomed in my constituency, and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster.

For the last two hours I have felt a little like the Lone Ranger and I am delighted to see that the US Cavalry has arrived to support me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on his success for the second time in the ballot for private Members' Bills. I wish him every success in continuing to prosecute the cause for which he introduced his first private Members' Bill.

The Bill he has before the House today and which he introduced so comprehensively and clearly, seeks to address the problem of the possibility of using civil defence or, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) would have us call it, civil protection facilities, for the purposes of combating peacetime emergencies. It will not come as any surprise to the House to hear that those of us on the Opposition Benches approach the Bill from a somewhat different perspective to that of many hon. Members who have spoken from the Government Benches.

Many of us, myself included, have the severest doubts about the value of civil defence or civil protection preparation for a nuclear war. We regard as a grotesque charade the possibility of providing any conceivable sort of remedy or protection for the citizenry in the event of a nuclear attack. That is the direction from which we approach the Bill. Although that perspective differs from the perspective of hon. Members on the Government side, we come to somewhat similar conclusions about the use to which civil defence facilities can be put in peacetime.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) spoke movingly about the sight of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the devastation of 1945. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Morro) also spoke about that spectacle. I have some doubts about his conclusion that civil defence might mitigate such a disaster, because I do not believe it can. That is the position of the Labour party on the use and usefulness of civil defence precautions in the event of nuclear attack.

In a sense it is worse to try to persuade our people that in the event of nuclear attack some sort of civil protection or civil defence is possible, because that tends to make the concept of nuclear war and fighting and surviving it more thinkable. The attitudes that breed that view are at times dangerous. That is the position from which we approach the Bill.

Many local authorities have suffered in this debate from side-swipes from Government Members, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), over their decision to become nuclear-free zones. I will not go into detail about the admirable reasons for any of those decisions. Those local authorities share our scepticism about the potential value, or lack of value, of civil defence preparations in the event of nuclear attack.

Having put that clearly on the record as the perspective from which we approach this Bill, I should say that does not mean we ought not to look seriously and thoroughly at the way in which we presently respond to peacetime emergencies, and at the relative lack of preparation that we have brought to them.

We must welcome anything that tries to concentrate resources on the peacetime use of civil defence rather than on preparation for hypothetical wartime use. I think it was the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) who spoke about a humanitarian response to disaster. All of us in the House ought to be addressing ourselves to that. The Opposition welcomes the principle of the Bill. We welcome the use of civil protection and the defence powers for peacetime rather than for wartime preparation. We welcome anything that attempts to address emergencies when they occur in peacetime.

We have some questions to pose and some qualifications to make about parts of the Bill. Many citizens may well be surprised to learn that the resources available to local authorities for civil defence purposes cannot in strict legal terms be used to address peacetime emergencies. I understand that the Home Office tends to look somewhat benignly at local authorities that use some of their personnel and staff for planning for peacetime emergencies rather than for wartime emergencies. Strictly speaking, those authorities are breaking the law and as a legal rationalisation measure, if nothing else, this Bill is welcome.

It is interesting to note, as has been mentioned in this debate, that the measure was forecast in the Conservative party's election manifesto. I suspect that the hon. Member for Upminster has had considerable Home Office cooperation and support in drafting the Bill. For that reason we must look at it carefully as not simply the creation of the industry and ingenuity of the hon. Member, but also of the Home Office and probably Government Ministers as well. In that context, the Opposition will look at it carefully. The first question we must ask is what resources are we talking about and is there any plan on the part of the Government, if this Bill becomes law, to devote increased resources for the purposes the Bill seeks to address. There is no commitment to additional resources and no specific commitment in the Bill to provide such resources. Will local authorities yet again be asked to do more with less, or will the Government ensure that the proper resources, in the form of the civil defence grant, are made available to local authorities?

It is worth considering briefly the resources that are available to local authorities to cope with disasters and emergencies. All local authorities have powers under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972, and its Scottish equivalent of 1973, to incur expenditure and make grants or loans to avert or ameliorate the effects of an emergency or disaster in their areas. However, the fire and civil defence authorities that will replace the metropolitan county councils and the GLC on 1 April are not entitled to any such funding or powers under section 138. An attempt was made to rectify that anomaly in the Local Government Act 1985, but it failed on the general policy ground advanced by the Government that the district councils and London boroughs had the power and that it was not needed by the strategic London authorities. It might be worth considering during the passage of this Bill whether the fire and civil defence authorities set up after abolition should be awarded that section 138 power to bring them into line with all other local authorities faced with new responsibilities and powers. In addition to section 138 money, there are two sources of funding, the first of which are the CIMAH, or Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations. They allow for the charging of manufacturers where a public authority must step in to cope with disasters that occur as a result of the manufacturers' actions. The second source of funding is the civil defence grant, which needs prior ministerial approval, which can be waived. It is discretionary.

Those resources are put to different uses by the districts, boroughs, shire counties and Scottish regions. Few districts and boroughs have identifiable civil defence resources that could be used under clause 2(1), apart from their civil defence emergency centres and communication equipment. Those emergency centres, which are colloquially called bunkers are unlikely to be of practical value in a peacetime emergency or disaster, and their communications networks are generally linked to the county bunkers rather than the outside world. The shire counties and Scottish regions also have few physical civil defence resources that could be utilised under the terms of the Bill, but they have civil defence staff and a network of volunteers that could be put to some use. However, the civil defence staff are primarily there for planning purposes, so their main use would be under clause 2(2).

The value of volunteers would depend entirely on the quality of training and exercising that they receive and their availability in the circumstances of the emergency or disaster. In considering the resources that will be made available to the civil defence authorities if the Bill is passed, we must ask whether new resources will be made available and what new facilities or services will be provided that are not already provided by ad hoc arrangements between authorities. Will the Bill simply be a consolidating and legalising measure? We must also ask whether section 138 powers will be extended.

The wording of clause 2(2) links far too closely the civil defence plans for wartime and the peacetime plans that are made. That point was raised with the Home Office during a meeting with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 5 February. The AMA informed me that the Minister made it clear that, in the Home Office view:

"The civil defence resources made available for peacetime emergency use by the Bill could only be used for dual purposes: civil defence grant would be available for civil defence measures which could serve both purposes but not for projects solely for peacetime use."

That worries me. Linking so closely the resources that are available for peacetime and for wartime use, and saying that they cannot be divorced and that local authorities cannot consider peacetime planning in isolation ignores the crucial differences between different types of emergency.

The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke movingly of the way in which the Flixborough disaster affected his constituency. Other hon. Members spoke of disasters that had occurred or were likely to occur in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) spoke of the possibility that water and sewerage protection in London might have gone out of operation had not the Thames flood barrier been constructed — one of the many achievements of the GLC. Recently, I spoke to a microbiologist from Surrey university, who went to Mexico City in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake there to advise the Mexican authorities on their water supplies. He said that when he arrived about six or seven days after the first earthquake, the city authorities had already got into full working order a clean water supply for almost the entire city. He added ruefully that that would not have been possible at that speed had a similar disaster occurred in Britain. That should give us some pause for thought when we consider our preparedness for disasters.

Let us consider two potential disasters. The first is a limited wartime nuclear attack, although it seems obscene to use the word limited in that context. If a nuclear attack was made on Britain, the Government's entire civil defence strategy would be based on the principle of encouraging the population to stay put. The obvious reason for that is that a mass exodus would immediately cause utter chaos. That staying put policy would differ dramatically from the response of the same authorities if there were an accident in peacetime.

If a train carrying nuclear waste were to be involved in an accident in a tunnel with a train carrying a highly inflammable petroleum product and there were to be a derailment of the train carrying the highly inflammable petroleum—it is a chance in a million, but it is possible that such an accident could occur — the danger of nuclear contamination would be very considerable. Evidence to that effect was given only two or three months ago to the Select Committee on the Environment. The immediate response of the authorities to such an accident would have to be to evacuate the population living for miles around the area. The response to the two events would be completely different. In the one event the authorities would endeavour to ensure that the population stayed put. In the other event, the authorities would attempt to enforce the evacuation of the population from the area. It is an extreme example, but I use it to make the point that one has to plan for different types of emergency in different kinds of ways. Clause 2(2) links in a very sweeping fashion plans for peacetime with plans for wartime. That is not the right way to go about it.

During the Committee stage, which I trust will be swift and enable the Bill to come back to the House in good time, I hope that a change will be made that will enable local civil defence authorities to use personnel and resources to make plans, but they ought not to be required to make the same plans as those that are made for use in wartime.

I reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Upminster on introducing the Bill, to which I have pleasure, on behalf of the Opposition, in giving a cautious welcome. We hope that improvements will be made to it in Committee along the lines that I have suggested. Planning for peace is so much better than planning for war. I wish that the Prime Minister would accept that message a little more often.

In recent weeks it has become something of a habit for me to follow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in debate. I suspect that he has spoken on every amendment during the many sessions on the Public Order Bill, and I have responded to every amendment. That is therefore no novelty for me. However, I welcome the novelty that this Bill—piloted so very well to its Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor)—has provided a platform for an exchange of views on these issues with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury in which our objectives coincide. I shall deal with a few of the important points that he raised before I turn to the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman was right to ask about resources. He suggested that this is a codification measure. It is not a measure that will release new resources. The resources that are available from the Home Office for civil defence purposes amount to about £80 million. The grants that are available to local authorities form a significant proportion of that sum—between £11 million and £13 million. The hon. Gentleman will also know that that sum has not been fully spent in recent years because certain local authorities have not made provision for a planned and effective use of civil defence resources.

Furthermore, the thrust of civil defence expenditure is related to the regulations that were published in 1983 and formally issued last year. The assessment of plans made under the regulations will, I hope, lead to a review of expenditure and also to a review of the commitment by local authorities in seeking to implement plans which meet the criteria that are laid down in the regulations.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the power that is contained in section 138. He knows that the powers of essentially multi-purpose authorities are very different from those that can be exercised by single purpose authorities. They are the main successor bodies. There is duality in the metropolitan areas where we are talking about fire and civil defence authorities. They are very different forms of local government structure from the elected local government structure to which he referred and which exercise section 138 powers. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, that if there are to be effective plans for civil defence by the local fire and civil defence authorities through the implementation of the 1983 regulations we shall have to ensure that resources are available that will enable them effectively to be made.

The object of the Bill is to allow the resources that have been built up within local authorities over the years—resources that are based exclusively upon their civil defence requirements—to be used in addition, where appropriate, for peacetime purposes. It is not a contradiction, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested, that this should be so. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said that what would be available for both is an essential network of communication, trained personnel, volunteer systems and other common factors which in all emergencies, whatever those emergencies may be, would have a common purpose. That should allow the House to welcome the Bill, as has been done by all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster must indeed be congratulated. As has already been pointed out, he will have the enviable reputation of having had allocated to him more than one Bill in the history books of Parliament. He opened the debate with great care and showed great knowledge of the subject. He has a long association with the civil defence movement. He has introduced an important measure which will make it easier for the civil defence movement to find an acceptable role alongside the civil emergency planning role. It will be an all-hazards policy. That is very important.

We believe it to be a vital contribution. It will reassure the general public and it will enhance the use that emergency planning officers can make of the resources that are available to them. We must not forget that, although the Civil Defence Act 1948 did not specify the role of county emergency planning officers, it was very much the catalyst around which this concept has been developed in recent years.

My colleagues referred in their varying and extremely cogent ways to civil emergencies. They must reflect on the fact that the county emergency planning system that has been set up was based largely on the catalytic consequences of the 1948 Act. The county emergency planning officers are effective, well organised and professional. A number of my colleagues drew attention to specific incidents in which the emergency planning officers, acting on behalf of the local authority, had contributed in a major way to the safety of the population.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who has now had to attend another function, rightly paid tribute to the professionalism of the county emergency planning officers. He asked whether the Government intended to review the level of grant which, in most cases, for civil defence purposes, is 75 per cent. of costs. We are reviewing the level of grant. I recognise that, in seeking to improve the capacity of the planning system to take on these additional responsibilities and in seeking, as we must, to improve public awareness of the importance of civil defence, it is right that we should review again the percentage grant obtainable from my Department.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) rightly emphasised the importance of volunteers. Within the civil defence movement a substantial number of persons have given their voluntary time, the most obvious example being the members of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation. That uniquely effective organisation deals with planning and the potential hazard not only of nuclear attack but of conventional atack and similar disasters. This substantial body comprises over 10,000 highly trained people who provide a communications network.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) was concerned about training and training levels. One advantage of the present grant system is that it encourages recovery of training costs by local authorities. My hon. Friend was right to stress the importance of training.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), in a weighty contribution, referred particularly to nuclear safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), in his evocative contribution on his constituency's problems, made that point also. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, who referred to Sellafield, that important plans are available designed to deal with these problems in the nuclear industry.

I appreciate the concern that has been expressed about our ability to respond to a major leak of radioactive material. That would have serious consequences. Emergency arrangements and contingency plans have been prepared. There is close liaison between the county emergency planning team in Cumbria and the nuclear industry about the Sellafield site and the British Nuclear Fuels plc installation at Chapel Cross. The emergency planning officer is closely involved in preparing off-site plans for both installations and in monitoring. Regular exercises are held to implement those plans.

The emergency planning officer, representatives of the nuclear industry and the other interested bodies, including the local authority liaison committee, help to ensure that emergency planning is a high profile subject which is dealt with by the sub-committee concerned. It draws on all the experience available on emergency plans to cope with an emergency on the site.

I should like to reassure the House that the matter has been well seized and that there is a structure for coordinated planned response if any difficulty or problem requires emergency treatment. I trust that the House will recognise that this is an important subject.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) referred to the question of reviewing the level of funding, increasing it from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. I fully understand that point. He reminded the House of the recent uses of the emergency planning procedures, including the use of the Raynet system on Humberside during the oil pollution incident and the recent failure of the water main in Leeds. A number of my constituents had to go without piped water for three days. The emergency planning officer and his team were able to provide an important addition to the resources made available to deal with that problem. That is an effective use of the communications network which has been established for civil defence purposes. The idea that lies behind the Bill is that local authorities should now be clear that, if the Bill reaches the statute book, they are entitled in law as well as in fact to use their resources, which have been developed primarily for civil defence purposes, for peacetime purposes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) referred to the humanitarian approach and he is right to say that that lies behind the Government's attitude to civil defence. Although I know that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) would not accept this, we regard the humanitarian approach as fundamental to defence policy. The Government seek to protect the population from hazard from any direction. That is certainly the case for civil defence as it is for military preparations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) referred to the reduction in the threat of nuclear conflict. The Government have pursued consistent and effective defence policies, against substantial opposition, and we now see the possibilities of nuclear war receding. That is all to the good.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East raised another point about the co-ordination of the response to emergencies. We are studying for a period in the north-west the co-ordination of all the emergency civil defence and allied authorities to see how well Government and local government can respond to a real threat of emergency. We should learn a lot in that way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes expressed his understandable anxiety about the disposal of nuclear waste and about whether that would affect his constituency. He also related, and I agree with his point, the importance of industrial hazards. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also referred to the importance of the CIMAH regulations.

I recall being involved, in my time at the Department of the Environment, with the development of the CIMAH regulations. They stemmed from a European Community directive known as the Seveso directive arising from an assessment of the problems that occurred in Italy. A massive chemical problem occurred which was not simply confined to the town of Seveso and the unfortunate people living there, but also, by virtue of its size and the extent of the chemical clouds, threatened to drift across national boundaries and endanger other member states. That brought forward the move for a co-ordinated response, which led ultimately to the Seveso directive and the publication in the United Kingdom of new regulations under the CIMAH provisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will probably know that emergency planning provisions are available if things go wrong, but the planning provisions now applied allow local planning authorities to be made aware of the location and volume of stored substances so that a record may be kept and inspection carried out under the Health and Safety Executive auspices. That ensures that substances are not stored in a haphazard way and that one chemical is not stored adjacent to another which, if accidentally mixed with it, could cause the kind of disaster which my hon. Friend forecast could have occurred if chemicals had mixed together in the railway accident he mentioned.

I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government have moved a long way in our provisions for the handling of both nuclear and industrial chemical noxious substances. The emergency services are now well trained in how to deal with these hazards. The fire services now have a substantial knowledge of how to handle a whole range of hazardous substances which might leak into the public domain. The old-fashioned simple solution of squirting water on everything is no longer the way to deal with fires—far from it. It is an extremely effective and hazardous process conducted by professionals who have undergone a long training programme in dealing with many chemical substances.

I have digressed from the shape and substance of the Bill. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster for doing that and for trespassing on his measure.

It is my hon. Friend's Bill. I should perhaps refer to him as "Up, Minister" because that is his function in relation to the House today. He will recall, and the House has been reminded of the fact, that our last manifesto included a commitment to legislate to enable civil defence resources to be used in a peacetime emergency. That is why I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to deliver the commitment, which we all undertook, to bring it to the statute book, and it rests upon him to do so.

The differing views in the House and the country on the approach to civil defence are understood, but happily there is no disagreement—I welcome hearing that from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury—about the Bill's major thrust, which is that, when disaster strikes, available and appropriate resources can legitimately be used to bring relief.

The improved and improving level of civil defence preparedness of local authorities across the country means that there are considerably more resources on the ground than has been the case in recent years. County authorities should have available to them trained and experienced emergency planning staff. Hon. Members have paid tribute to them. In addition, they should have emergency centres from which activity can be co-ordinated and communications equipment with links to the emergency services. How useful they have been in recent civil disasters. They should also have a motivated and informed team of volunteers within the community. There are obvious applications for such resources in peacetime emergencies as well as the potential wartime uses for which they have primarily been developed.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was right when he said that it is the dual purpose—if I may put it that way—that lies behind this measure and the payment of grants for facilities which are being developed. There must be a duality of objectives.

The Government have been commending a broadly based, all-hazards approach to emergency planning. That approach recognises the common humanitarian aims of moulding responses to and plans for all emergencies in peace and war, whatever their cause.

The Government recognise also the practical applications in the use of resources. They also give valuable encouragement to an integrated approach to the planning process, with the skills acquired and lessons learned in discharging wartime planning responsibilities flowing through to inform peacetime emergency planning.

We hope that it will never be necessary to put into effect the contingency plans that are being developed for civil defence in wartime, but those plans are not just rarified paper exercises. Their starting point is a detailed knowledge, at a local level, of what is available, what are the problem areas and what can be done. There are considerable benefits to be had from carrying through that knowledge and experience in peacetime emergency planning. I have quoted the control of industrial major accident hazards as a good example of what is necessary for that purpose.

That kind of knowledge is perhaps one of the most valuable assets that can be applied to cope with peacetime disasters. However, new developments in the technology applied to civil defence will also be valuable. We are looking, for example, with local authorities at ways of building up local computer databases from which the kind of resources that might be needed to cope with any kind of emergency can be rapidly identified.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury quoted an example of two trains, one perhaps carrying nuclear material and the other chemicals and the problems that might arise if they were to collide in a tunnel. Such data might be made available to an emergency planning centre to enable it to respond quickly and correctly to the complex chemical problem or the risk to the local population. A database of that type would be a significant advantage in co-ordinating a response to what is clearly a peacetime disaster.

We are also examining the ways in which the special wartime communications system, allocated to local authorities, can be effectively used in the event of peacetime emergencies. Changes in our planning assumptions have meant that we have had to develop civil defence planning to cope with a shorter time scale than ever before: improving our ability to identify and mobilise resources quickly, if needed. As planning becomes more complex, we are having to concentrate more on improving liaison between all the local authorities and public services involved, across local authority boundaries. These developments should also have clear implications for local authorities' ability to co-ordinate a response among themselves to peace-time disasters. We have long recognised, in practice, that resources allocated to civil defence can be and have been effectively applied by local authorities to cope with peacetime emergencies. It is only right that we should give statutory recognition to that fact. This is not to suggest for a moment that peacetime emergencies and disasters, such as major floods, severe blizzards, leakage of dangerous chemicals are in any way to be equated with the large-scale and devastating horrors of war. This is especially true of the ultimate horror of nuclear war. Let us look rather at the practical effects. If a person is made homeless, his or her need for temporary accommodation is exactly the same, and must be relieved in a similar way, whether his house has been badly damaged by floods, contaminated or blown apart. If a person is buried in rubble, the cause of his predicament is not the first thought on his mind: he wants to be dug out.

Our critics may say, at least in peacetime there is someone to do the digging and some temporary accommodation standing which can be brought into service. Even given the worst scenario, however—the most terrible attack upon this country—there would be millions of survivors and a range of resources available to help them. The whole essence of civil defence is to ensure that those resources that can help are marshalled and are put to the most efficient use possible, through plans and preparations made in peacetime. Civil defence is not in any case geared solely to all-out nuclear attack. We believe that, in the unlikely event of war, the most likely form of attack would be conventional bombing, which has, I think, the closest parallels with the sorts of incidents we are now considering.

The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and supported and welcomed by all the major parties is designed to ensure that our insurance policy against war—the investment, both human and financial, in civil defence contingency planning — gives the community the best possible value. It will encourage the use of all available resources in any emergency, whatever its cause. It can make a positive contribution to the alleviation of the misery which disasters envitably bring. The Government are delighted to commend it to the House in the capable hands of my hon. Friend.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) has introduced the Bill. I have listened to the speech of the Minister of State, Home Office but I am certain that words will not bring about the protection that the Bill requires from the Government. Some positive actions have to be taken arising from the passage of such a Bill. I quote one sentence from the explanatory memorandum which states:

"It also enables any local authority making plans for civil defence purposes to take into account the possible occurrence of such an emergency or disaster and makes provision in their plans for the use of their civil defence resources in that event."

I represent an area of Hackney which is one of the nuclear-free zones. Hackney borough council has protested against the transport of nuclear waste by train through that borough. Accidents may happen, and, indeed, do happen. If such an accident took place involving a train, the consequences for the people living near the event would be disastrous.

I attended the experiment when a train travelling at about 100 mph was crashed into a nuclear flask to see whether the flask would remain intact after impact. Although the testers said that they were certain that nothing untoward would happen, they used an empty flask. That showed that they had doubts. Afterwards, the flask did not look healthy to me, and I do not accept that that experiment guarantees safety in the event of an accident between a train and a nuclear flask.

In 1954 I was a Coventry city councillor, and I saw the explosion of the H-bomb on television. Coventry was badly bombed in 1941, and the people there know what high explosive bombs from the air mean for a city. When we on Coventry city council saw the effects of the hydrogen bomb, we knew that we could not possibly defend our citizens against that weapon. We were not prepared to kid our people any longer that we had a nuclear umbrella to protect them during nuclear warfare. That was the honest approach for a local authority to take, and an honest statement. We withdrew from civil defence at that time.

I was one of three councillors who met the Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, and the brass hats of civil defence to discuss civil defence. We were worried about it because while we knew that we could not defend our people against a nuclear attack, we still had the responsibility to defend them in the event of a public catastrophe, such as often took place in the engineering industry in Coventry. We insisted that the real defence of our people was based on real actions. We said that we needed an improved fire service — that was essential during attacks in the war—a good ambulance service, adequate hospital facilities and trained personnel to deal with public disasters.

Such disasters occurred and continue to occur throughout the country, for example at Flixborough. There are major accidents on the roads, the railways and in the air, and the most recent disaster that comes to mind is Sellafield. I do not deny that the population needs adequate civil defence during peacetime, but I will not allow it to be used as an excuse to persuade people that we have the defences to protect them against a nuclear attack, because that is sheer nonsense.

I put a series of questions about civil defence to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and the Government of the day 30 years ago. I am still waiting for those answers to questions put to the then Government about the real and adequate defence measures that would be necessary in the event of some kind of nuclear disaster. The last sentence of the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states:

"The Bill is not expected to have any significant financial implications and will have no effect on public service manpower."

That is a disaster and it is wrong to make such a statement.

We need more expenditure on civil defence for the British people and more manpower. In support of that statement Britain's firemen lobbied the Government yesterday against the cuts in fire services. Fire stations are being closed down. Doctors and nurses have lobbied against cuts and closures in hospital services, which we must have in the event of a disaster so that people can receive the treatment required. Ambulance workers have also lobbied the Government against cuts in ambulance services.

It is not enough to acknowledge the need for real civil defence in peacetime to enable people to cope with public disasters. In supporting the Bill the Government must make sure that they provide what is needed to protect the people, whether fire, ambulance or hospital services or trained personnel, and that will mean more expenditure on those services.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) began his speech by telling us that Hackney was a nuclear-free zone, as indeed is the Greater London council area. Basildon district council is also a nuclear-free zone. I note that the sidings of Liverpool street station come within the Hackney borough council area and I shall be careful in future always to make sure that I catch the fast train to my constituency so as to avoid having to stop in Brentwood, which is not a nuclear-free zone. No doubt all my constituents will follow that advice. If they have any sense they will catch the fast train anyway, but for rather different reasons from those advanced by the hon. Gentleman.

I speak briefly for two reasons. The first is warmly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) on introducing the Bill. The Billericay constituency borders on the Upminster constituency. Therefore, as an Essex Member of Parliament I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing a Bill that commits local authorities

"to use their civil defence resources in counteracting the effects of peacetime emergencies and disasters as well as the effects of wartime hostile attack",

and further

"empowers a local authority to use any of their civil defence resources in taking action to deal with the effects of any emergency or disaster likely to be destructive or dangerous to life or property in their area".

I am sure that the vast majority of my constituents would regard that as elementary common sense. My hon. Friend has an abundance of common sense and so it is right that he should be the Bill's promoter.

The second reason for my seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was the robust speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) dealing with the potential dangers and difficulties in his constituency, particularly at Flixborough. During his speech my hon. Friend mentioned that he had two oil refineries in his constituency — Conoco and Lindsey. Therefore, I share with him two similarities. We were the first two graduates from York university to enter the House of Commons and we both have oil refineries in our constituency.

In my constituency I have Mobil Oil at Coryton and Shell at Shellhaven. Anyone who has that sort of industrial development or such hazardous industries in his constituency will greatly welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. In fact, listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes when he was dealing with the hazards and difficulties that can arise in a constituency and the usefulness of this Bill in the event of such problems, I found myself thinking, "There but for the grace of God go I and nearly every other hon. Member sitting in Parliament today", because there is always the possibility that something could go wrong.

Having said that I want to place on record that I believe that the oil refineries in my constituency are responsible and know the dangers and problems that can arise from their operations. I thank them for their openness and frankness in always contacting me whenever they envisage a problem or when anything has gone wrong in a small way to alert me to the problem and the reasons for it.

The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster could be useful with a number of other difficulties that could affect my constituency. Thirty years ago my constituency was affected by flooding. In fact, the opening of the Mobil site was affected by flooding. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the difficulties and problems of water and the usefulness of civil defence in dealing with such problems.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington mentioned nuclear waste. I too have a railway line running through my constituency, from Wickford to Billericay. Nuclear waste in flasks is carried on that railway line from Bradwell nuclear power station. Therefore, I am concerned that the transport of nuclear waste should be conducted safely. I have travelled on the train through my constituency to assure myself that all that can be done is done to ensure that the transport of those nuclear flasks is conducted in a safe and proper manner.

I thought that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington was rather carping about the CEGB experiment where it crashed a train into a nuclear flask. I thought that that was a remarkably good experiment. It reassured the vast majority of my constituents that those nuclear flasks were as safe as they could be. I have four railway stations in my constituency. It is conceivable that the terms of the Bill could be triggered into action by an incident at one of those stations.

I want to pay tribute to all of the emergency services that operate within my constituency. They do a remarkably good job and nothing in the Bill takes that away from them.

On Tuesday 4 February I had the great honour and privilege of visiting the fire service college at Moreton in the Marsh. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will refer to the appropriate Minister in the Home Office how impressed I was with everything that I saw and heard concerning the training of our firemen at the college.

It is stupid that, for legislative reasons, everything possible cannot be done to prepare for ordeal with disaster. The Bill removes one of the legislative hurdles or blocks and I believe that it will reach the statute book. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster deserves great tribute for having pushed it there.

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate for the support and assistance that has been given to the Bill. It is especially pleasing to hear support from the Opposition Benches, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench. I was pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) had to say. It is pleasant to be able to agree on a great deal of the contents of the Bill and on the need to improve, as far as we can, the peacetime services that are available in the event of disaster. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it is the duty of this Government, and of any other Administration which runs the country, to attempt to provide a humanitarian response to disaster of whatever type.

It would be impossible for us to agree on everything. We do not agree, for example, about the wartime provisions that it is necessary for the Government to take. In the context of the Bill, I do not need to be drawn too far along that road. However, it is an issue that we should discuss at another time.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) have visited Hiroshima, which I have not. However, I shall never forget reading some years ago the horrifying eyewitness account of someone who survived the Hiroshima disaster. He was a boy of 10 years when it occurred. He described how he went swimming with his friends. He dived into the water and while he was beneath the surface he felt an almighty explosion. He described it as a sort of drum beat on the surface. When he surfaced, there was no town and no friends and he had no family. However, he survived. Many of those on the fringes of Hiroshima survived in the most appalling conditions that it is possible for us to imagine fellow human beings having to suffer.

In those circumstances, horrific as they are—God forbid that we ever have to suffer them in Britain—it is wrong for anyone to take the line that there can be no place for a civil defence and civil protection movement which is prepared for action. In fringe areas where people and buildings have not been utterly destroyed and where life remains, there will still be a place for an organisation to help and control. I shall not pursue that issue any further this afternoon.

My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke of the possibility of a non-war nuclear disaster as a result of leaks from our power stations. There are those who oppose having nuclear power stations in Britain on that ground, but I am not one of them. I believe that the safeguards are as good as we can hope for and that we must have the availability of nuclear fuels if we are to be able to compete with our European competitors, who have already moved well ahead in the nuclear power industry.

There is a danger to Britain whether we have nuclear power stations or not when our neighbours do. The clouds of radioactivity that would stem from any major nuclear leak from a power station, if it were to emanate in France or any other European country, would pose as great a risk to Britain as a leak that emanated from this country. It is important that that eventuality is taken into account when we consider the steps that must be taken in preparing for civil protection.

My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and for Brigg and Cleethorpes spoke about train and lorry crashes and the possibility of a combination of both. That is already in the minds of those responsible for civil defence exercises. Railchem 84, an exercise with precisely that risk in mind, took place two years ago. That exercise involved the collision of a road tanker carrying a chemical with a British Rail passenger train at a level crossing in an imaginary village. Many local councils took part in the exercise and it was extremely useful. The Bill will encourage such exercises.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes mentioned his constituents' fears after the Flixborough leak. Their fear is understandable. It should be felt throughout the country because of the complexity of chemical plants and the way in which chemicals are stored. Their fear is fully justified. We have a duty to heed that fear. For those reasons I believe that the provision of peacetime civil protection is essential and I am delighted to put the Bill before the House.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am not an anti-smoking fanatic. I am a non-smoker, but I accept that many people, including members of my family and friends, find pleasure in smoking. However, I confess that I sometimes wish that smokers would be more considerate about where and how they smoke. I do not pursue a vendetta against smokers, although smokers are now in a minority in our community.

The evidence is massive and incontrovertible on the extent to which smoking is responsible for disease and death. Smoking is the largest avoidable cause of illness and death in Britain.

I commend to hon. Members the publication "The Big Kill" which analyses the figures for deaths from smoking-related diseases, the illnesses caused by smoking and how hospital beds are occupied unnecessarily. The figures are analysed district by district and give food for thought.

The chief medical officer at the Department of Health and Social Security estimates that 100,000 premature deaths per year are caused by smoking. It is a sobering figure. This very week 2,000 people died earlier than they might have done because of smoking-related diseases. If tobacco had just been discovered and had been subjected to the tests to which new products are subjected it would never have been allowed on the market. However, I accept that smoking is now well established and that prohibition would be neither practicable nor even desirable. It is certainly not practicable and I do not advocate it. However, it is the duty of Government and Parliament to ensure that the population is informed and educated about the effects of smoking. It is our duty to encourage smokers, if they will not cease smoking, to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke. We have a special duty to dissuade the young from taking up smoking in the first place.

The Health Education Council and Action on Smoking and Health both receive some financial aid from the DHSS and they both mount energetic campaigns. However, their resources are pitifully small compared to the enormous sums spent by the tobacco industry in promoting and advertising its products. Some of that promotion is carried out by sponsorship. There are restrictions on the extent to which tobacco products may be advertised. There are health warnings on packets and on advertisements and one cannot advertise cigarettes on television.

My specific concern is the sponsorship by tobacco companies of sporting events. The purpose of sponsorship of such events is quite clearly to publicise the company and its products and services with a view to selling them. That is a perfectly proper activity and one that is carried out by banks, insurance companies and a number of commercial concerns for the purpose of getting their names across to the target audience. They may well feel that by spending their funds sponsoring a concert or a cricket match or some similar activity, they are getting to that audience more effectively than by advertising in a newspaper.

I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's train of thought and I certainly agree with him that nobody in the House would accept for one moment that the tobacco companies are benevolent organisations. They are there for a commercial and presentational role. No doubt my hon. Friend will talk the House through the first three clauses in his Bill. The fourth clause is fairly straightforward. Clause 1(1) says:

"The Secretary of State may by Order make provision for the prohibition of expenditure on sponsorship by tobacco companies of sporting events,"

Is my hon. Friend able to rest easy with that, because many hon. Members on the Government side feel it is more akin to the sentiments of the Opposition? Is my hon. Friend happy and are his constituents happy with that phraseology? Which Secretary of State does it mean?

I am perfectly content with that. That is the object of my Bill and precisely the argument that I am seeking to develop, about why a Secretary of State should be given that power. I think it will be the Secretary of State for Social Services, but to the extent that we are dealing with sports matters it may be a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is replying to the debate so it would appear to fall within the ambit of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

I am not critical of sponsorship as a form of advertising, and cigarette companies sponsor sports events for exactly the same purpose as any other commercial concern, to sell their products and to get their names known. At some sporting functions sponsored by cigarette companies, the companies sell or even give away their products. The object is quite clearly to promote the product and get new customers for it. My objection to tobacco companies sponsoring sporting events is that it gives the impression that there is some connection, some correlation between sport, which is a good healthy activity, and smoking. The companies hope that smoking will be perceived as a healthy activity, when we all know that it is precisely the reverse.

During the past few years, general sponsorship has grown substantially. Between 1981 and 1984, the number of companies involved in sports sponsorship doubled from more than 700 to more than 1,400. The estimated expenditure on that sponsorship increased from £50 million to about £112 million. Of the 1,400 companies involved in this sponsorship, only 22 are tobacco companies, but it is noticeable that they are especially involved in the events that receive much media coverage. To their credit, sports such as swimming and athletics do not accept sponsorship from tobacco companies, and the Football Association has said that it will not accept sponsorship from tobacco companies because it does not believe that it would be appropriate to do so.

There are two important aspects of the media coverage of such events. The first is the extent to which a sponsored sport appears on television. It is estimated that, in one year, about 365 hours of sport sponsored by tobacco companies is seen on television. By far the largest is snooker, which occupies about 176 hours. Cricket occupies 65 hours and many other sports, including tennis, golf and darts, are seen for many hours on television. In all of them, the product name is seen frequently and displayed in large, unavoidable terms. Indeed, in some cases, the participants can be seen on television smoking cigarettes.

That raises the question whether the BBC is allowing its charter to be contravened, because it states specifically that there shall be no advertising. The ITV rules are that there should be no advertising of tobacco products, especially cigarettes. But that is frequently done in breach of the advertising industry's code of practice. The voluntary code of practice on tobacco products states:

"Advertisements should not imply that smoking is associated with success in sport. They should not depict people participating in any active sporting pursuit or obviously about to do so or just having done so, or spectators at any organised sporting occasion."

Anyone who watches television for any time will draw his own conclusion as to the extent to which the code is being complied with.

One clause of the sports sponsorship agreement requires that static signs displaying the name of the sponsor or the product should be placed so as to minimise the possibility of freeze frame shots having the signs in view for long periods. Sometimes they seem to be placed so as to maximise that. Another part of the code provides that:

"House brand names or symbols on participants or their equipment or on officials of tobacco sponsored events, must not come within camera range."

How often does one see on sports cars and on people's clothing the name clearly shown? Hon. Members can judge for themselves the effectiveness of those agreements and codes.

What worries me especially is the effect on children. It has been estimated that a quarter of all children under the age of 16 watch Embassy snooker. It must have some effect on them. Dr. Frank Ledwith, research fellow at the department of education, university of Manchester, has carried out some very interesting research. He states:

"A representative survey of 880 children in first, third and fifth years was carried out in five secondary schools in one education authority using an anonymous questionnaire. It was found that children were most aware of the cigarette brands which are most frequently associated with sponsored sporting events on TV. Children's 'TV viewing of a recent snooker championship sponsored by one cigarette manufacturer was positively correlated with the proportion of children associating that brand, and other brands used in TV sponsorship, with sport. Following a snooker championship sponsored by another cigarette manufacturer, a second survey was carried out on a new sample showing that awareness of this brand, and the proportion of children associating it with sport, had increased from the first survey."

There cannot be much clearer proof than that of the effect of television sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies.

One could ask whether all this matters, whether it is important and whether it has any effect. The fact is that children are a very good market for tobacco products. Recent figures show that 41 per cent. of children are smoking at the age of 16. This is a horrifying figure. It has also been demonstrated that between the ages of 11 and 16, children spend about £70 million on cigarettes. This is illegal and must be a reflection upon tobacco retailers. Somebody is selling the product to children. But that is very much to the advantage of the tobacco companies. It is a lucrative market for them. There is also a good chance that if children begin to smoke at that age they will be cigarette smokers for life. It is no wonder therefore that tobacco companies believe it to be particularly worthwhile to sponsor sporting events.

My Bill proposes to prevent that kind of sponsorship. It will not stop it immediately but it will be stopped over a period of three years. It is argued that if sponsorship is banned, sporting events will collapse.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I suspect that I am about to answer my hon. Friend's question, but I shall allow him, nevertheless, to make his point.

I am not sure that my hon. Friend intends to deal with it. Therefore, I should like to put my question to him before he deals with the next stage of his argument. My hon. Friend is a distinguished parliamentary adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association. Would my hon. Friend extend the principle of his Bill to whisky companies and prevent them from sponsoring sporting events?

No, I would not. My hon. Friend is right to point out the position which I occupy, but I find no difficulty in reconciling the two kinds of sponsorship. There is a clear difference between alcohol and cigarette products. If it is used in moderation, alcohol can do one good. Most of us enjoy a little alcohol. The problem arises when the use of alcohol is abused—

rose—

Let me finish my sentence. I am as concerned as anybody about the abuse of alcohol. I am involved with various committees that seek to educate and inform people about that problem. It has been proved beyond doubt that cigarettes are harmful per se. Therefore, alcohol and cigarettes cannot be compared. I have no difficulty in reconciling my views on these two products.

rose—

I do not wish to be drawn into an argument, because I want other hon. Members to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. However, I shall allow my hon. Friend to get in again because he is obviously worried about this point.

My hon. Friend said that some people believe that alcohol does one good. Therefore he says that people should be allowed to make a choice. A number of my constituents—though not me, because I am a nonsmoker —believe that it is therapeutic to smoke cigarettes. Why does he take a different view in principle about alcohol compared with tobacco?

The short answer is that I have ample medical evidence in respect of both. The spirits industry takes it upon itself not to advertise on television. I do not think that a precise comparison can be made, but I do not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) for trying it on.

Some of my colleagues might suggest that the sports would collapse without the sponsorship of tobacco companies. That is hard to believe. I have said that about £112 million a year is spent on sports sponsorship. Of that, about £8 million is estimated to come from the tobacco companies. One can hardly suggest that losing £8 million would make all that much difference and that it could not be replaced. A large number of companies would be happy to take over the sponsorship. When the sponsorship by a tobacco products company was withdrawn from a London orchestra, other sponsors quickly stepped in. The statistics show that, if one sponsor withdraws, another is usually arranged within two or three months.

I am sure that the sports will find no difficulty, especially as the provisions will be phased in over a three-year period, in finding other sponsors. This applies particularly to those companies I have mentioned that enjoy a great deal of television coverage. I understand that there is a waiting list of companies interested in sponsoring certain sports. One imagines that some of the up and coming companies in the electronics business would welcome such exposure.

I suggest that the Bill will not be any danger to sports. I gently point out to Ministers that the Government raised £4·5 billion a year in taxes on tobacco and that a further tax of 0·25p on 20 cigarettes would produce enough money to cover all sports sponsorship money at present received from tobacco companies.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) —who has responsibility for sport, will tell me that, until now, this matter has been handled by voluntary agreement and that he is negotiating a further voluntary agreement and would like to continue along that course. I understand that, but I am bound to say that experience suggests that any such voluntary agreement is likely to be breached in as many respects as the existing voluntary agreement. I suggest that the fact that a new agreement is pending does not prevent my hon. Friend from accepting the Bill. My legislation will not become active until the Secretary of State makes an order to implement it. It will be enforced over a three-year period.

Smoking is dangerous to health—it says so on every packet. Our duty is to discourage smoking. One of the best ways of doing this is by supporting my Bill, which will curtail and eventually eliminate sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies. I hope that the Bill has the support of the House.

I cannot praise the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) too much, not only for the way in which he has presented the Bill but for his constant endeavours with respect to prevention rather than treatment. Over the years he has achieved a reputation on both sides of the House for his health work. The Bill continues that tradition.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chislehurst on choosing this subject, which seeks to prevent death and illness. I believe that this cigarettes legislation and the Tobacco Products (Sales Restriction) Bill, which concerns children under 16, are supported across the board, politically and socially, in the community at large. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that pressure should be most intense to stop people contracting the habit. The House recently discussed the Tobacco Products (Sales Restriction) Bill dealing with the £70 million which children under the age of 16 are spending on cigarettes. If that Bill is passed alongside this, that would be the greatest step forward for many years.

As long ago as 1960 Sir George Godber, the chief medical officer of health, said in the DHSS annual report:

"To prevent illness, if one could do something in this field, it would be the greatest step this century".

In pursuing his line, the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a well-worn track. The House accepts that the hon. Gentleman is the last person to be fanatical about a subject. The idea that there are many people who are anti-something, and that British people want to stop and prohibit everything, has nothing to do with the hon. Member for Chislehurst. As I have said previously, if I could find a non-carcinogenic, non-emphysemic, non-bronchitic cigarette, I would be happy for the good Lord to put chimneys on people's heads to allow them to smoke ad nauseam.

That is not the case, and the evidence about smoking is now clear. The hon. Gentleman, in giving the weekly figure, ought to pull the House up short in its tracks. Last week 2,000 people died, another 2,000 people will die this week, and next week 2,000 more will die, from smoke-related diseases. If that number of deaths occurred through jumbo jets crashing there would be headlines across the world. If a tourist coach crashed in Parliament square and 100 or so people were killed in one collision, something would be done.

The hon. Gentleman's argument is based on the fact that the inevitable consequence of smoking is death. Therefore, if one can stop the promotion of cigarettes to young people in one way or another, and specifically in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested—in sports ponsorship—that would not only save life and medical bills but would prevent many tragedies.

The number of smoke-related deaths in people under 65 is horrendous. One should not just count the wage earner in the statistics of those who die under the age of 65, but should also include the consequences of the tragedy for the wage-earner's family. A man aged 44 died in hospital in my constituency, leaving four children. The consequence of his death goes beyond his decision to smoke; it has a consequence for the community.

The hon. Gentleman is going with the trend to consider sports sponsorship. as so much these days is decided by image and not by words. People project an image. The image projected to youngsters is that motor racing around Brooklands is marvellous and should be associated with a manly endeavour, but it is odd that it should be related to acting like a child with a dummy and sucking on a piece of white paper wrapped around tobacco. That is the manly image that is promoted and it is that which continues the sale of cigarettes to youngsters under the age of 16.

The hon. Member for Chislehurst was quite right to ask the Minister with responsibility for sport to examine the matter thoroughly. The Minister was kind enough to receive a deputation that I accompanied the other day and he listened to the case in connection with the present negotiations. The Minister should note that voluntary codes of practice are too frequently broken. The classic example of that occurred during Wimbledon tennis fortnight, two years ago.

It also happened recently, as the hon. Member for Chislehurst will recall, with the picture in The Observer. The Observer carried an advert with a picture of a car and a caption referring to the quality of the car and the driver. However, the large print name underneath the picture, "Marlboro", implied more strongly that the quality was due to the cigarettes. The Minister said that the advertisement was rather near the knuckle. He did not use those words, because Ministers do not reply in such a way. He was far more polite, and said that it was near the edge.

When the Minister is making his arrangements, will he consider sanctions to ensure that, if the code is broken, there is some way in which the company involved can be penalised?

I hate to mix my metaphors and talk about a liquid as a red herring, but in previous debates it as been suggested that if one thing is bad it should be compared with something else. When my children were young, if my daughter was naughty, my son always claimed that he was good. The clinical difficulty with some comparisons is that carcinogenic agents do riot require that a quantity be smoked. A light smoker can contract carcinoma of the lung because the carcinogenic agent does not proliferate. If one contracts the disease, that is it. Quantity does not come into the matter because one does not contract the disease by smoking a good deal, but only by smoking.

I believe that most Members have received the document "The Big Kill". In the Brent district health authority area there were 369 deaths last year. There were 152 deaths from heart disease, 159 from lung cancer and 58 from bronchitis and emphysema. My area has closed one hospital. I am busy consulting the authority about the closure of another one. Chest and heart diseases last year cost Brent £600,000. That is a considerable sum. I would sooner see that money spent on the elderly and the other things that the area needs, rather than on treating a preventable illness.

I received a parliamentary answer the other day and found some of the comparisons in it rather surprising. The House and the country are worried about hard drug abuse. It is a problem to which the Government are paying attention; a Bill is going through the House. One wonders whether the Government have double standards when dealing with one form of addiction compared with another. In 1983, there were 64 deaths from morphine-type drugs in England and Wales. There were 14 deaths from morphine and other types of drugs and there was one death from a morphine-type non-dependent abuse of drugs.

In the same answer, the Minister was kind enough to tell me that the Government recognise that 100,000 people die prematurely from the effects of smoking. I will not weary the House — I know many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate—with the amount spent on drug and nicotine abuse and the promotion of smoking.

It is interesting to note that, in another answer, I was told that £55·5 million is spent on advertising. It is believed that over £100 million is spent on persuading people to smoke, by sports sponsorship and other means. The Government provide a total of £3·5 million There is an uneven tug of war. About £100 million is spent on telling people to smoke and £3·5 million on telling them to refrain. Cigarette-related diseases cost the National Health Service £370 million a year. That is a large chunk out of the resources available for other important matters. I was interested to see another answer I received which stated that, if one put 6p on a packet of cigarettes, the Exchequer would take in £190 million.

The House and the country approve of sport, especially for young people. We do not want youngsters hanging about street corners, finding themselves at a loose end because they have left school and are out of work. Sport is promoted by the Government through the Central Council for Physical Recreation and through the efforts of the Minister with responsibility for sport. It therefore seems ridiculous that the Government cannot find the £8 million for sports sponsorship to provide sport for young people.

In 1966 Kenneth Robinson, a former Minister, introduced a ban on advertising for the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The hon. Member for Chislehurst has pointed out that the BBC, which does not advertise at all, is taking the brunt of advertising cigarettes through its sports sponsorship. This is not only against the BBC's charter but against the intentions of all Governments of the past 20 years to promote sport for young people.

I hope that the Bill will get a further hearing. I realise, of course, that we are too late for a closure. This question goes across the Floor of the House and is not a party matter. I ask the Minister whether it is not possible for the House itself, without any Whips, to come to a decision on this matter. If that could be arranged, I am fairly certain that if — in spite of the well-known efforts of the consultants for British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and others; hon. Members who have constituency interests and are naturally concerned about employment—the House itself could have the opportunity of a Second Reading on this excellent Bill, then the House, in Committee, will be able to take it forward. This is no more revolutionary than asking for a three-year span after a decision is taken. We are talking possibly of five years; at the rate of 100,000 deaths a year, that is still a long process. I hope that the House will take this step in order to secure a Second Reading.

I am not concerned with the cost of illness alone. Death through chronic bronchitis or emphysema is torture to a degree which one cannot behold without revulsion. No human being ought to die in that way. We all have to die some time and that is acceptable —it has to be acceptable, as there is no alternative. To die gasping and scrabbling for every breath, and to spend weeks in a cardio-thoracic ward—any of us who have witnessed our friends or relations in that situation never want to see it again. If the hon. Member for Chislehurst has his way, then, although I will see such suffering, my own children will not see it in the future.

I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and also with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). I represent a Nottingham seat, and although I do not have a direct constituency interest, there is a large tobacco factory in the next constituency and undoubtedly some of my constituents work there.

There is no need for my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport to look anxious. I am not making a guest appearance after being in "Yes, Prime Minister" the other week. He will recall that I am a Nottingham Member with the same interest as that fictional sports Minister.

I am worried about various points. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst should remember that when this campaign is over —I do not believe that it will be successful — and the tobacco industry has been destroyed, the banning lobby will move to alcohol. Indeed, there are already signs of that. There is always something to ban. Indeed, early in life I concluded that for anything I enjoyed there was a lobby which wanted to ban it. As I have a wife and three daughters—I am glad to say that none of my daughters smokes —and I both drink and smoke, I spend most of my money on women, smoking and drink and squander the rest. I expect that that is true of many hon. Members.

When I listened to the debate the apposite parallel of Macaulay speaking about the Puritans and bear baiting came to mind. They banned bear baiting, not for the pain that it caused the bear, but for the pleasure that it gave to the spectators. That feeling always lurks when somebody wants to ban something. One can always make a good case. One could make a good case for banning alcohol. Indeed, the United States tried prohibition, but it was unsuccessful.

The major anxiety of those concerned with the hard drug scene in London and Nottingham is not hard drugs or tobacco, but alcohol. Alcohol is the most dangerous drug because of alcoholism and the other problems that it produces, and I do not doubt that the lobby will move on to ban alcohol next. I disagree with that because people and industries should be allowed to choose.

The tobacco companies have been diversifying into other areas. For a long time the industry has been dwindling for various reasons, including public opinion. People have stopped smoking. It has been said that a large number of young people smoke, but my subjective impression is that fewer smoke than in my young day. My eldest daughter is 18 and my twins are 15. When I was their age it was rare for young people not to smoke, but now it is rare for them to smoke. The change has been as great as that. I believe that in the long term a hard core of smokers will remain, but gone are the days when the vast majority of the population smokes. For that reason, the tobacco industry must diversify and has done so successfully. It has also spent large sums on trying to find harmless alternatives to tobacco.

Under clause 3, "tobacco product" means, not only any form of tobacco, but

"smoking mixtures intended as a substitute for tobacco."

The hon. Member for Brent, South said that if he could find a harmless substitute, he would be happy with it, but the Bill will ban anything and everything.

I was interested in my hon. Friend's reference to the insidious effects of alcohol. Those of us who have been concerned with these matters for some years and who have a genuine love for the sporting arena conclude that the presence of alcohol, in whatever form, is infinitely more disruptive socially, whether in the sports arena or family circle, than tobacco. I do not deny the statistics given by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). My hon. Friend represents the fair city of Nottingham which has two soccer teams which, happily, have a fairly good reputation for good behaviour. The point that I am trying to make is that alcohol, related to sporting events, has an infinitely more disruptive social effect than the product that we are discussing today.

I agree. We must take on board, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will later, the fact that the stark reality that any Government must face is that tobacco taxation still raises £4 billion. There is no immediate way of doing away with that without vastly increasing taxes in other areas. Therefore, I refute the idea that the destruction of the industry would be a good thing. Making up lost revenue would impinge on other areas fairly dramatically.

It is not that tobacco companies are after new smokers in the form of young people. What they are concerned with is brand share. That is what they are chasing. Cigarette smoking is not a growing area. They know that it is dwindling but they will fight tooth and nail to get more of their present share of the market, and so would anyone else in the same position.

The statistics to prove my hon. Friend's points are that in 1970 the consumption of manufactured cigarettes was 127,900,000. Last year that figure had fallen to 97,500,000.

Indeed. I do not think that a Newcastle Member is here, but a large factory employing over 1,000 people closed there only last year just because of the lack of demand.

There has been a drop in demand, but there has also been a considerable increase in mechanisation so that a smaller number of people are required to produce the same number of cigarettes.

That is true. However, the number of cigarettes and other tobacco products that are sold has dropped at the same time. What is happening in the tobacco industry is what one sees happening in many other industries as technology moves forward —a smaller work force is needed. If that happens in a shrinking industry the effect is even more devastating. That is precisely what has happened.

It was said earlier that sports are all healthy. In the main all would agree with that but I sometimes arrive home from the House early in the evening and see darts and snooker on the television and I remember lectures from my father about a misspent youth in the snooker hall.

It is true that companies advertise to promote their products. That is a natural thing to do and they are bound to do it. Undoubtedly, tobacco can cause illness and eventually, in some cases, death. But that is true of alcohol as well. If we go too far down this path we shall produce a nanny state. People must be left with their freedom.

By coincidence, I received a letter this morning from the Nottinghamshire county cricket club asking me to speak in the debate. I was planning to anyway, but it comes as a rather useful piece of ammunition. That letter points out how much it and other cricket clubs have depended on tobacco sponsorship over the past 25 years. It also makes the strong point that probably only a minority of people would support the banning of tobacco sponsorship, and that is generally true. The British public are not keen on banning things and it shows the soundness of British public opinion that they are generally prepared to let people live their own lives.

In the context of Nottinghamshire county cricket club is my hon. Friend not aware that, Chislehurst is in the Kent county cricket club location? Kent county cricket club has done very well in winning much tobacco sponsorship and support in recent years and, of course, a great deal of prize money. Does my hon. Friend not consider that some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) may have applauded Kent's success?

I do not doubt that. I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I am not just concerned about the period of time over which sports have been dependent on sponsorship from tobacco companies. I believe that over 60 sports have received sponsorship from tobacco companies of one kind or another, from the grass roots to the high profile.

A particular point has been made about sponsorship appearing on television, but there is a great deal of money which goes to fairly small clubs which never appear on television so there is no direct benefit to the company. I believe that it should be up to the sporting bodies to make their decision about whether to accept sponsorship rather than for it to be banned from some source.

I believe that next Friday there will be a Bill about business sponsorship for the arts. I do not doubt that the arts would love more tobacco sponsorship or more sponsorship from anywhere because they desperately need money. To chop off that sponsorship, even over a fairly short period, let alone overnight, could have a devastating effect on many sports. I do not believe that the British public, on the whole, would support this. It is not in favour of dictating to other people how they should live their lives. It is quite happy to let them get on with it and accept the consequences, even if they are ill consequences. I support that judgment.

On behalf of the Labour party I welcome the Bill and am pleased that the hon. Member for Chiselhurst (Mr. Sims) has found the opportunity to introduce this sensible, moderate and staged measure. In response to some abusive remarks made about him on the radio this morning by one of the paid representatives of the tobacco industry, I 'would like to say that he is not an oddball, and those who support the proposition are not oddballs. The health organisations which support the Bill are certainly not oddballs because they are the British Medical Association and the Royal ollege of Physicians. If I have to take advice on health and have to choose between the representatives of the British tobacco industry and the Royal College of Physicians I know which advice I will listen to.

Smoking kills 100,000 people a year. The tobacco industry is unique because it is the only industry which kills 100,000 of its customers every year. Consequently, if it is to stand still it has to recruit another 100,000 smokers every year or it will go down even quicker, the natural choice is making it go now.

I do not want to disrupt the hon. Gentleman. A few moments ago he said that he was speaking on behalf of the Labour party. I would like to be certain that he is now speaking for the shadow environment team, because, for a variety of very good reasons, no doubt his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath. (Mr. Howell) is not in his place. We are anxious to know whether his comments would carry the right hon. Gentleman and whether they would be endorsed by him.

I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is absent for other reasons. However, it is now and has been since 1982 the policy of the Labour party that we wish to stop the sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies. That will remain our policy. I shall return to the subject that is under discussion and leave the sideshow of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), who has made enough interventions already.

Faced with a loss of 100,000 customers a year, the tobacco industry is hard pressed to recruit new smokers.

rose—

No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall not give way if hon. Members wish to make interventions of the sort made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.

Parliament has restricted the scope of the tobacco industry to advertise and promote smoking. As a consequence, the industry has turned to sponsorship. There are various estimates, and it is difficult to track down the correct figure, but it is believed that between £8 million and £10 million is contributed by the industry towards sponsoring and promoting sport.

Why is this happening? Is sponsorship an altruistic activity of the industry? The answer is no, of course it is not. The law requires the directors of tobacco companies as well as other companies to promote shareholders' interests. Their actions should benefit shareholders, and the actions of tobacco companies in sponsoring sport and promoting the sales of cigarettes are intended to benefit shareholders by increased sales or by maintaining the level of sales. This is done by deliberately associating sport with smoking in the mind of the public, especially the young public.

The industry's investment in sport sponsorship is aimed at recruiting new smokers, especially new young smokers. Its success is shown by the surveys that have been undertaken in Manchester and other areas, to which the hon. Member for Chislehurst, referred. The industry has found an ace way of skirting the restrictions which Parliament has placed on its right generally to advertise.

Who can fault the industry? It has been extremely successful. The most recent figures that I have been able to obtain show that there were 323 hours of tobacco-sponsored sport on television in 1984. I understand that half a minute of advertising time that is networked by ITV —I checked this today—costs about £80,000. A minute of advertising time would, therefore, cost £160,000, and an hour would cost £9·6 million. The tobacco companies are enjoying free advertising on both channels, but mainly on the BBC, for about 323 hours a year. If they had had to pay for that advertising in 1984, it would have cost them in excess of £3,100 million.

rose—

No, I am not giving way. The Minister will want to reply, and I wish to ensure that he has time in which to do so.

To obtain 323 hours of free advertising, the tobacco companies contributed to sport the princely sum of about £10 million. One of my criticisms of sporting bodies is that even if they have to obtain sponsorship, they are making a pretty poor fist of securing a good bargain. The extent to which they are benefiting must be set against the benefits that the tobacco companies are enjoying as a result of the arrangement.

In this context, I am sickened by the BBC's behaviour. BBC executives —some of whom live in my constituency—write to me to the effect that the BBC should not be made to carry advertising. It transpires that they do not oppose advertising in itself. Instead, they oppose being paid for it. I regard that as carrying the cult of the amateur to a ludicrous extreme.

Unlike the BBC, the Independent Television Authority is beoming increasingly concerned about free advertising, presumably partly because it undermines its position and the position of television companies generally in selling advertising. That is one of their legitimate concerns and I understand that they are having discussions with Ministers.

I speak as a sports fanatic. I am no longer a participant, as observation of my corpulent frame will show. I spend a great deal of my time watching sport, reading about it and talking to others about it, and I have no doubt that I shall continue to do so. But what are the sports doing which are obtaining sponsorship? The sports know that smoking is unhealthy. Those involved in sport know as well as the president of the Royal College of Physicians that smoking kills. They know that that form of advertising promotes tobacco sales. Our policy is to resort to statutory prohibition because the tobacco companies and the sports cannot be trusted to exercise restraint.

We are told that sport is intended to promote and sustain healthy minds in healthy bodies. That is a good idea and that is why sport receives substantial public subsidies from the Sports Council and from local authorities. Tens of millions of pounds go to subsidise sport.

Since sport receives such substantial subsidies we should expect responsible behaviour. There is an exemplary aspect to the portrayal of sport on television. Much damage is done to sport—to soccer in particular —by the portrayal on television of violence at soccer matches. We all deplore the exhibition of non-sporting behaviour. That is a further indication of how much attention people pay to sport and one of the reasons why the tobacco industry is so committed to being involved in it.

We are talking about an addictive drug and some sports are so hooked on tobacco sponsorship that they will find it difficult to kick the habit. That is why in this sensible and moderate measure the hon. Member for Chislehurst suggests a three-year transition so that sport will not have to go cold turkey by having to do without sponsorship. We support that. Some sports are so dependent on finance from tobacco that it is in the public interest to spend public money to bail them out while they find other sponsors. The evidence is that other sponsors will be relatively easy to find.

What sponsors?

The evidence is that other sponsors have put a lot of money into other activities. Between £110 million and £120 million of sponsorship money goes to sport each year. The tobacco companies' share of that is only about £10 million.

Tobacco companies have an alternative. If the sports people are addicted to such advertising, would not the tobacco companies agree to badges being displayed on players' shirts with the words "I am only doing this for the money. Smoking kills"?

That would certainly be an improvement.

In Nottingham, Bristol, Newcastle and Glasgow thousands of people are employed in the tobacco industry. It would be behaving like the Pharisees for reasonably well paid Members of Parliament or health professionals to say that they were not interested in the future of people employed in the tobacco industry. Those people should not be thrown on the scrap heap or forgotten. If, as a result of a deliberate act of policy, we put their jobs at risk we should be prepared, as an equally deliberate act of Government policy, to find them alternative employment.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry. I cannot give way because I want the Minister to reply.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition spokesman has given way—

Order. The hon. Member who has the Floor must decide whether to give way and to whom.

The number of people employed in the tobacco industry has fallen in 10 years from about 40,000 to 24,000. That is due partly. as I said, to the drop in sales of cigarettes and equally, if not more so, to increased mechanisation in the industry. Despite all the cries of diversification by the tobacco companies, they did not diversify to create jobs for the people previously working in the industry: they have not shifted them into booze or biscuits. As an act of public policy the Opposition believe that this sort of sponsorship should be stopped and anybody presently employed in the tobacco industry who suffers as a result of a halt in sponsorship should be promptly assisted to find alternative employment. The matter should not be left to market forces.

On behalf of the Opposition I welcome this Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important and topical issue. I also welcome the fact that there seems to be a certain amount of cross-Chamber agreement on some of the points. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is extremely knowledgeable on the subject and he illustrated that in dealing with some apposite interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor). My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst has played a constant part in this issue for a number of years, not least as the chairman of the all-Party Back Bench ASH supporters group.

It was also helpful to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. East (Mr. Knowles) and from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt), who probably matches up with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. We had some interesting interventions from my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He came out positively with the view that his party would ban sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies. The hon. Member was tested by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on this point when my hon. Friend mentioned the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).

I remind the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that the Howell report produced by the committee of inquiry into sports sponsorship, held two or three years ago and chaired by his right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, said:

"The Voluntary Agreement concluded between the Government and the tobacco industry is the right way to regulate sponsorship of sport by tobacco interests. Government, sport and the industry should ensure that the Agreement is properly observed at all times".

We do not dispute that last sentence. The Opposition need to sort themselves out on this point, because the world at large, and especially the sporting world and cities where people work in the tobacco industry, such as those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, will note the views of the Opposition.

Could my hon. Friend speculate on the contribution made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the suggested redundancy of 4,250 people in Bristol? The hon. Member suggested that other jobs should be found for those people. Is it not amazing that the Labour party should be advocating the redundancy of such a large number of people without any clear commitment to alternative employment?

In the House yesterday we heard a few things from the Opposition about public expenditure. No doubt they would incur further liabilities on public expenditure if they were to follow the course put forward by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.

The Bill calls for a ban on sports sponsorship to be achieved through a phased reduction of expenditure. The Government's view is that the voluntary system of control remains the most effective way of restricting the industry's sponsorship of sport and its possible impact on the public. My Department has negotiated voluntary agreements with the industry which allow tobacco companies to continue to make a contribution to sport and at the same time to protect the public, especially the young, from excesses.

During the past 20 years, the dangers to health associated with smoking have become more apparent, and this has brought increasing pressure for controls on the tobacco industry's advertising and promotion activities. Tobacco advertisements on television were banned in 1965 by a Labour Government, as the hon. Member for Brent, South said. In 1971, the first voluntary agreement on advertising was negotiated between the Conservative Government and tobacco interests. It included a range of voluntary measures intended to discourage smoking. The voluntary agreement on sports sponsorship, which was introduced in 1977 by the Labour Government, with considerable input from the right hon. Member for Small Heath, complemented the agreement on advertising. It restricted the amount of money that tobacco companies could spend in real terms to the level spent by individual companies in 1976. It identified which sports could be sponsored and restricted the size and number of hoardings used for advertising at sporting events, as well as the display of sponsors' names on participants' clothing and equipment.

The present agreement, which was renegotiated in 1982 by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, continues to restrict activities in the same way, but also stipulates that the Government health warning should appear on advertisements for sponsored events and on promotional signs at such events. It calls on companies to keep expenditure on media advertising and promotional activities within a reasonable proportion of total expenditure. It specifically limits the amount of promotional material at televised events, and especially prohibits the display of sponsors' names or logos on players' or officials' clothing and equipment. It places controls on which sports can be sponsored, and it calls on companies not to sponsor activities in which the majority of participants are under 18 years of age.

My colleagues in the DHSS are seeking to replace the present advertising agreement, which runs until March this year. Negotiations with the industry are in progress; the details must at this stage be confidential. The sponsorship agreement fell to be reviewed at the end of last year. We have taken advice from the medical profession and other bodies concerned, including the Health Education Council and the Sports Council —both financed by the Government. I am considering seeking some changes to the agreement, bearing in mind the representations that I have received and the negotiations on the advertising agreement. Recently, the Sports Council made its views public when it declared itself against tobacco sponsorship in principle, but at the same time accepted that there is a voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry. It said that, in the review, special consideration should be given to the protection of children. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that.

Has my hon. Friend sought the advice of the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the governing bodies in sport?

I am glad to welcome to the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Morro), who is another of my predecessors. I can answer him in the affirmative. The CCPR has members on the Sports Council and its views have been included in the representations made by the Sports Council. I cannot, of course, be specific about the changes that I shall seek. My negotiations with the industry will be confidential. From the comments I have received, however, it is clear that there is considerable concern about the amount of television exposure that tobacco companies receive through sponsorship. Many people see this as a way round the formal advertising bans and are particularly concerned by studies that have suggested that children believe that tobacco is advertised on television. Of course it is not, and it has not been advertised for 20 years. However, in an opinion poll more than 70 per cent. of children questioned seem to believe that it is.

Although there is a lack of evidence to suggest that children take up smoking as a result of such sponsorship, the Government continue to be concerned about young smokers and will seek to ensure that there is adequate protection from sources through which they might be encouraged to take up the habit. In taking advice on the workings of the present agreement, a number of possible breaches have been pointed out to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst referred to the Health Education Council's documents and to other examples which highlight these breaches. I take breaches very seriously and I shall study carefully the material that I have received. This information may provide a major input to my forthcoming negotiations with the industry.

All complaints received are followed through and, if substantiated, resolved quickly with the industry. I do not consider that these instances have been enough to weaken the case for continuing the voluntary system. It has generally worked well in protecting the public, particularly the young, from possible excesses, while allowing the industry to make a contribution to sport. My aim is to ensure that the industry continues to make a contribution, but with necessary restrictions in order to ensure that the public are not encouraged, directly or indirectly, to take up smoking.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not givng way. I must get on with my speech.

The voluntary system remains the most effective method of restricting and controlling the impact of the tobacco industry's sponsorship of sport. We consider that legislation is not needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Bill is therefore unnecessary, especially as the industry's expenditure on sports sponsorship, being limited to the 1976 levels, is already decreasing each year as a proportion of all sports sponsorship, which is growing rapidly. Tobacco sponsorship is now below 10 per cent. of all sports sponsorship.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister able to reassure me that he does not believe that the criminal law should prevent a sporting organisation from accepting money from a tobacco company or from any other company that wants to promote that particular sport and that to make this a criminal offence is offensive to most people?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have already said that the Government consider that legislation is not needed.

This has been a constructive debate. My aim in securing a new agreement is to ensure that any doubts are eliminated. However, I shall bear in mind all the views that have been raised today. They will be of great value in considering what changes to seek to make to the present sponsorship agreement.

Conservative Members will have been heartened by the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. It is interesting to find that the Opposition health teams have taken over responsibility for sport and the environment. It has to be contrasted with what happened in previous years. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has cleared his speech with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Reading between the lines, the hon. Gentleman seems to be in some difficulty after his speech in Cambridge not so many weeks ago.

I make no apologies for intervening in the debate. I do not intend to defend the tobacco companies. I have no interest to declare, apart from the interests of a number of retailers in my constituency who depend for their trade upon tobacco products. I do not use tobacco products. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) cannot rest easy with the phrases in the Bill:

"To provide for a ban on sponsorship"

and

"The Secretary of State may by Order make provision for the prohibition of expenditure".

Such phrases seem to sit a little oddly on the shoulders of Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst may have wanted to put across a number of points but he has not set about it in the right way. I believe that alcohol is infinitely more disruptive at sporting events than tobacco.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said that sports shown late at night on television were purported to be healthy. My hon. Friend does not carry me with him. I watch snooker and darts late at night and I do not see them as good health-giving products.

Tobacco companies have generated a great deal of influence and interest in sports promotion, not only in Britain but throughout the world, as I have noted time and time again when I have taken trade delegations to countries, especially in the middle east. I do not believe that, in the past 20 or 30 years, there has—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today is private Members' day and I understand that on many occasions the Executive informs private Members if a Bill is to be passed without debate at 2.30, in order to allow Members a chance to object.

Is it a convention of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Executive acting in that capacity on private Members' day, should courteously inform hon. Members what reasons there are for objection? I understand that that is done in most cases, but I should like to know if that is done when notice was given over a year ago.

That may be the convention, but it is certainly not part of the rules of the House.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the problems of the sub-post office network in Great Britain. I am grateful to the Minister for Information Technology, who has come to reply to the debate. I hope that we can take some comfort from the fact that the Minister's responsibilities are primarily to do with new technologies. Perhaps he will have something to say about the application of new technologies to the sub-post office network in Great Britain.

There are in Britain today some 20,000 sub-post offices, a little less than half of which are in towns, and the remainder in rural areas. They comprise an essential part of the social fabric of Britain. They are also a part of our small business network, the network which the Government seek to encourage, since many employ people in their own right. All of them represent the livelihood of at least one family, frequently a couple in middle age who have sunk their life savings into the enterprise.

More importantly, every sub-post office in Britain is an essential part of the community in which it exists. For many, especially the poorer in our society who do not have cars, the local sub-post office is also the local shop upon which they rely for their groceries and essentials.

Sub-post offices are also an essential part of the system of government in Britain. They are responsible, among other things, for 70 per cent. of all Department of Health and Social Security payments. That bald figure does not express their true worth in the welfare system. For many, the local sub-postmaster provides the human face for what is otherwise a cold and insensitive bureaucratic welfare system. As we saw during the Post Office's recent programme to close down some town sub-post offices, many people regard their local sub-post office as an essential element of their community, at least as important and valuable as the local pub, church or school.

The value of sub-post offices in not to be measured just in their contribution to Britain's social fabric. As the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Ronald Dearing, recently admitted to me in a letter commenting on the Post Office's profit last year of £133·7 million—incidentally, up 15 per cent. on the previous year's figure—the contribution made by sub-post offices to the corporation's profits is actually greater than that which derives from the main Crown offices of the Post Office Corporation. In short, the sub-postmaster and the office he runs are not only socially invaluable but also, apparently from the figures which the Post Office has collected, highly efficient.

Yet this invaluable network, this national asset, is now under threat from the Government, like so many of our other national assets. In the last three years, no fewer than 624 sub-post offices have closed and gone out of business. The number of vacancies for sub-postmasters advertised by the Post Office for which no applications have been received has risen by almost 20 per cent. in the last year alone. That is an increase of one fifth in the number of people who do not think it worth while to apply for subpostmaster vacancies.

Clearly, something is wrong. In blunt terms, running a sub-post office has recently become increasingly difficult and for many downright impossible. Being a sub-postmaster was never an easy job. It requires a degree of social concern, long hours of work, a desire to serve the public and a great deal of commitment. However, the recent changes in the remuneration offered to the sub-postmaster, together with a squeeze on costs and Government threats about the withdrawal of business, are now seriously undermining the economic viability of much of our sub-post office network. For instance, between 1982 and 1985, whilst the work of sub-post offices has increased, according to the Post Office's calculations, by nearly 4 per cent. Sub-postmasters' pay has not even kept pace with the rate of inflation. I shall explain those figures in more detail later.

I shall give a few facts about sub-postmasters' pay and conditions. Sub-postmasters are not employed in the accepted sense of the word. They are contracted by the Post Office to provide a service. They have no right to annual leave, although they receive a limited substitution allowance. They do not receive sick pay, although, again, there are limited substitution provisions. They have no right of access to ACAS in the event of a dispute with the Post Office, such as is now occurring, and no arbitration agreement with the Post Office on matters directly related to pay and conditions.

In addition, sub-postmasters are required to meet the full cost of their premises and staff out of their own pockets. That last point is important, because it accounts for one of the pay anomalies which has allowed the Post Office to pretend that it is providing more remuneration to the sub-postmasters than is the case. The Post Office claims that sub-postmasters have a further income from their private business. That is correct, but such private business as they conduct shares the cost of the premises with the post office section and so saves the corporation money by reducing the costs of its element of that service.

The Post Office lumps together the remuneration for sub-postmasters, the cost of employees and the sub-postmasters' expenses. The result is that, since 1983, sub-postmasters have been subjected to a reduced net pay improvement because they have had to supplement higher expenses. In the latest pay offer, for example, the Post Office claims to be offering a 5·5 per cent. gross improvement. In fact, that amounts to 4·5 per cent. in the sub-postmaster's pocket because of the inclusion of expenses in the overall sum. It is 4·5 per cent., when inflation was running a full percentage point higher last year. at 5·7 per cent. Once again, it is the sub-postmaster who ends up paying out of his own pocket to cover expenses which should properly be incurred by the Post Office.

That all adds up to the fact that many sub-postmasters find it impossible to survive. I shall quote the example of a sub-postmistress in my constituency. She receives gross pay of £410 per month. That is a great deal of money, but after she has paid her expenses she is left with £300 per month for a 44-hour week, which does not include the substantial extra hours that she has to spend on paperwork. Her hourly rate is thus substantially less than that of the cleaner she must employ to keep her premises in order.

I recently asked the chairman of the Post Office, Sir Ronald Dearing, to give me the figures for remuneration paid to sub-postmasters over the past three years. On the face of it, the figures that he supplied showed an 18 per cent pay increase. However, that figure does not take account of the £60 million of additional business done by the sub-postmasters in 1984–85 as a result of the DHSS dispute.

As sub-postmasters are paid strictly according to the work they do, that sum must be accounted for separately, leaving a real increase over the three years of 16·22 per cent. —a full 3 per cent. below the prevailing rate of inflation, which measured 19·3 per cent. over the same period.

All that is happening at a time when sub-postmasters' work has increased overall by nearly 4 per cent, leaving individuals almost 7 per cent. below what they should have received merely to stand still over the same period.

That brings us to the position as it stands this year. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters—the recognised body in these matters—has refused to accept the current offer on the grounds that I have explained. The Post Office is now free to, and probably will, impose that agreement on the sub-postmasters. There is no action no arbitration; sub-postmasters can do nothing—they can either like it or lump it. I have no doubt that the majority of them will accept it. It will place even further burdens upon them and undermine further their economic capacity to survive. It will threaten once again the overall integrity of a vital network.

At the same time, the Post Office has also imposed new conditions for pay review. As part of the last remuneration agreement, a new system of reviews of work was instituted —or rather, required. This system requires annual rather than triennial checks of work. Many sub-postmasters find this unfair. For nearly 80 years, while the volume of business has been steadily increasing through the sub-post offices, the Post Office has been content to have triennial reviews, taking advantage of the fact that the sub-postmaster remained largely unrewarded for increases in work in the periods in between. The future business of the sub-post office network will drop because of the withdrawal of Government work. The Post Office insists on having the opportunity to cut pay as frequently as possible.

Sub-postmasters face yet another threat. The Public Accounts Committee recently recommended that pensioners and others should be offered an inducement, possibly as much as £50, to go over to the automatic credit transfer system for the payment of their welfare and pension benefits. Thus, welfare payments will bypass the sub-post office and go straight into the banks—for those lucky enough to have a bank account.

If the Government decide to implement this bribe—I call it a bribe advisedly — it will have the most devastating effect on the whole sub-post office network. It will endanger the viability of literally thousands of sub-post offices, leaving those who do not have bank accounts without a local office from which to receive their benefits. No doubt, in cold economic terms, some money will be saved for the Government, but the cost will be more than paid for by those who are among the most disadvantaged in our society and who rely on the sub-post offices as a source for their shopping, as a point of human contact and as an essential ingredient in their own community.

This amounts to a serious attack on a vital part of Britain's social fabric. If the sub-post office network is further reduced, the number of our small retail outlets, already in serious decline, will be drastically reduced; the quality of life in many communities, especially the isolated ones, will be further diminished; the livelihood of several thousand small businesses will be seriously endangered; an important and efficient contributor to the Post Offices profits will be threatened, and an important element of the British way of life in our towns and villages will be diminished.

I hope the Government will recognise the importance of what is at stake. I hope they will make it clear to the Post Office that they regard the sub-post office network as an important national asset which should not be further reduced. I hope the Minister for Information Technology will agree with me that, whatever the reasons for the Government placing a financial squeeze on the Post Office through increased external financing limits, the pressures that this creates should not simply be passed down the line for the sub-postmaster to carry. I hope that he will take this opportunity to state clearly that the Government recognises that the bribe proposed by the PAC would do terrible damage to the sub-post office network. I hope that he will, finally, make it clear that the sub-postmaster should be appropriately rewarded in this year's pay negotiations.

What we need is a positive policy to retain our vital sub-post office network. At the very least, this must include a requirement on the Post Office to make good the deficiencies in sub-postmasters' pay, rather than seeking to use their muscle to impose another inadequate pay deal on those who have served the Post Office and our society so well.

I am pleased to be able to reply to this debate and I welcome the opportunity to reassure the House, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in particular, about the Government's policy towards the sub-post office network. I am sure that he can distinguish between matters properly within the purview of the Government and matters belonging to the Post Office in its capacity as a manager.

I can well understand that the combination of a number of developments in recent years has given rise to concern among many sub-postmasters about their future in the counters business. The developments are first the urban closure programme, secondly the advent of changes in the method of paying social security benefits, and thirdly the Post Office's current intention to move to annual revision of sub-postmasters' remuneration. I recognise the understandable fears of sub-postmasters about the implications of those developments, and I want to take this opportunity to reassure them that the Government appreciate their concern, and to explain why it is important to keep the developments in perspective.

First, the House will recollect that the urban closure programme was debated at length in January last year. For that reason I do not propose to take time this afternoon to go over the same ground again. Suffice it to say that the Post Office was implementing a programme to reduce the size of the urban network by closing offices that were in excess of the long-standing criterion of providing offices at intervals of not less than a mile in towns. The programme was decided on for good commercial reasons, and the Government were satisfied that the proposed closures were not inconsistent with our commitment to the maintenance of an adequate post office network, or with the Post Office's statutory duty to have regard both to economy, efficiency and the social needs of the United Kingdom.

Although the debate last year was focused on the urban network, the hon. Gentleman took an active part in it, and he may recall the comments that I made on that occasion about rural post offices. In particular, I explained that the Post Office did not have any plans to reduce the size of the rural network. That is not to say that some rural post offices do not close, and will not close in the future. I understand that there is a net loss of between 80 and 90 rural offices each year because, although new offices may open in rural areas, their number is exceeded by cases where a sub-postmaster retires or resigns and the Post Office cannot find a suitable replacement to take on the office. That has been the position for many years, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not continue.

The Post Office is well aware of the impact that the loss of a village sub-post office can have on rural communities, and is always ready to consider the possibility of arrangements to retain a post office facility in a village, albeit on a limited basis. The scope for doing so increased last year when, as part of its efforts to preserve the rural network, the Post Office agreed with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that some post offices could move to part-time opening.

The second development in recent years which I believe has given sub-postmasters a sense of concern has been the advent of changes in the payment of social security benefits. These included the option for people to have their benefits paid direct into their bank or building society account by automated credit transfer, or ACT, rather than collect them every week at their local post office. More recently, concern has been aroused by the suggestion that inducements should be offered to people to switch to ACT. Indeed, I regret that, whether by accident or design, the position with regard to the payment of social security payments by automated credit transfer seems to be the subject of rather widespread misapprehension. To judge from letters that I have received that topic has prompted undue and unnecessary concern among many subpostmasters and their customers. To the extent that that is the result of genuine misunderstanding, it is unfortunate. But in a small number of cases it seems to me likely that pensioners and others using sub-post offices have been deliberately misinformed and caused to worry quite unnecessarily. If that has indeed been the case, it is most irresponsible. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity today to make the position clear.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the origin of the matter is the scrutiny that a team, reporting to my noble Friend Lord Rayner, then Sir Derek Rayner, undertook in 1979 on the arrangements for paying social security benefits. The scrutiny team recommended, among other things, the introduction of direct crediting and a reduction in the frequency of benefit payments. Those measures, together with the simplification of administration, were forecast to produce significant savings in DHSS costs.

The Social Services Select Committee substantially endorsed the recommendations, with some modifications. Following careful consideration of their implications, and after widespread consultation, the Government accepted the modified proposals, but with some important changes. In particular, the Government considered the impact of changes in payment arrangements on the Post Office network and on beneficiaries. It should be noted that the Government did not take up the Committee's recommendation that, as an incentive for beneficiaries to move to direct crediting, benefit payments should be paid two weeks in advance and two weeks in arrears.

In May 1981, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), the then Secretary of State for Social Services, announced that the Government had decided that most beneficiaries should have the option—I stress that this was an option, with no element of compulsion—to have their benefits paid direct into hank or other accounts. He also announced that it was the Government's intention to move to a position where, for mothers claiming child benefit for the first time, four-weekly payment would be the norm. Mothers already receiving child benefit would have the choice of switching to four-weekly rather than weekly payment.

It was recognised that those changes would lead to a fall in Department of Health and Social Security business over post office counters, but it was forecast that this would be more than compensated for by additional business from new and existing customers. It was also recognised that within this overall picture there would be variations and in order to provide a further safeguard it was announced that the Government would make available up to £2 million over five years to help smaller sub-post offices adversely affected if the new business did not grow at the same rate as DHSS business reduced. Following discussions with the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-postmasters, agreement on the details of the fund was announced in May 1983.

It might be noted that, so far, payments from the fund have been far less than were expected. In part this reflects the effects of the industrial dispute at the DHSS computer centre in Newcastle in 1984 but in large measure it reflects the upward trend in the volume of counters business since the announcement in May 1981.

The forecasts of new business included the effect of provisions that were subsequently enacted in the British Telecommunications Act 1981 enabling the Post Office to provide counter services for a wider range of public sector customers. Within these provisions the Post Office has been able to win a range of business including the sale of bus and train tickets and cards, which has contributed to an overall increase in the volume of counters business since 1981. For example there was an increase of 3·5 per cent. in 1984–85.

A further factor has been the lower than expected take-up of the option of payment by ACT with, as a consequence, lower than forecast savings in DHSS costs. This point was noted in a report that the Comptroller and Auditor-General prepared and published in February last year, following an investigation by the National Audit Office. The report was subsequently considered by the Public Accounts Committee which, after examining the DHSS, published its conclusions and recommendations last June in its 20th report in the 1984–85 Session.

Among its recommendations, the Committee expressed its surprise that, when the shortfall in expected savings became apparent, the DHSS did not give fresh consideration to offering direct financial inducements. The Committee recommended that early consideration be given to targeting inducements towards those most likely to be receptive to the idea. I should stress that this is a recommendation made by the PAC, not a decision made by the Government. The Committee also welcomed a survey being undertaken by the DHSS of public attitudes towards methods and frequency of payment of benefits.

Together with a number of other reports from the PAC the 20th report was debated in the House on 24 October. This was shortly after the Government had published their response to the report in a Treasury minute in which we noted that the DHSS would give further consideration to the issue of inducements to accept payments by ACT in the light of the survey of public attitudes.

In response to representations we have received about the PAC's recommendations on inducements, both I and my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the DHSS have made it clear that any consideration of the way in which benefits are to be paid will have regard to the effect that any changes will have on the post office network. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) gave the hon. Gentleman that assurance when he wrote to him last September and I am happy to repeat it today.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is therefore considering the PAC's recommendations in the light of the outcome of the survey of public attitudes and the representations that have been received on this matter. I understand that my right hon. Friend is hoping to make an announcement on this subject shortly.

Although I cannot anticipate that announcement, I want to emphasise that the Government have always made it clear that payment by ACT is an option that is open to people to choose freely, without compulsion or coercion. We have no intention of depriving pensioners and others of the option to continue to collect their payments in cash from the local post office. We recognise that for many people, even those who have bank accounts, the weekly visit to the post office can be both an incentive to gel out of the house and a valued social occasion.

I am grateful for those reassuring words. I may want to intervene again, so I will try to be brief. The Minister accused certain elements of irresponsibility. I think he must recognise that if there were to be a bribe, of whatever sum—if it is as high as £50 it makes the matter worse —it would have a devastating effect. If the Government are going through the process of making up their minds, bearing in mind the considerations the Minister has mentioned, I am sure that he must realise that those who have the best interests of the sub-post office network at heart will naturally want to mobilise public opinion to impress that fact upon the Government. That is in no sense irresponsible. It seems to me to be very responsible in the best interests of the network.

I shall move to the third development which has, in my view, given rise to concern among sub-postmasters. This debate is on a very important subject and we have limited time so I shall press on.

I want to deal with the frequency with which sub-postmasters' remuneration is assessed. That is, of course, a matter between the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and the Government are not directly involved. But, given the importance that the Post Office attaches to this issue the Post Office chairman felt that I should be aware of the background and it may be helpful to the House if I describe this as he has explained it to me. The Post Office has, since last April, been involved in negotiations with the National Federation of Sub-postmasters on the sub-postmasters' 1985 pay settlement. However, the main point at issue has not been directly one of pay, although it is related to pay. The pay offer itself that the Post Office made was in line with settlements the Post Office has secured with other pay groups within the corporation.

The issue in dispute is the frequency with which individual remuneration levels are assessed. A sub-postmaster is not an employee but an agent of the Post Office, engaged on a contract for services, and his remuneration is governed by the amount of business transacted at his office. Under the system currently in force —which dates back to 1908 —each office's business levels and hence remuneration are re-assessed every three years. If the new level of business is higher than the old, at least 12 months' arrears are paid to the sub-postmaster when his remuneration is increased, but there is no similar retrospective device for the Post Office if business declines. In addition, sub-postmasters have the opportunity to call for a special upward revision of their remuneration between triennial revisions if they feel that their business has increased by more than a small amount. But there is no similar opportunity for the Post Office to seek a reciprocal reduction when work falls.

The Post Office has therefore required, as part of the 1985 pay settlement, a change to a system of annual revisions. Although I understand that both sides have worked hard to try to reach a negotiated settlement there is no prospect of agreement on the sticking point of a change to annual revision. The Post Office has therefore informed the federation that it will introduce annual revision from next September and is now taking the measures necessary to put this into effect. I understand that the federation has reluctantly noted the position. The Post Office chairman has told me that compensation for the change of, on average, £90 will be paid to sub-postmasters.

Earlier in my speech I referred to the £2 million fund which was set up in 1983. I would like to tell the House that Mr. Alban Morgan, the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, has been in touch with my officials to inquire whether there is any possibility of extending the life of the fund beyond its present closing date of 30 April 1987. Mr. Morgan has been told that the Government would be willing to consider any proposals which the federation might wish to put to us. I am happy to have the opportunity today to confirm this.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the importance of the sub-post office network in this country.

rose

We are about to conclude and I would like to summarise.

There should be no doubt about the Government's recognition and appreciation of the important and valuable role that sub-post offices play in the communities they serve. This is true of the local post office in the town. In rural areas the village post office very often plays a key role in the quality of village life, and the Government wholeheartedly support the efforts the Post Office is making to arrest the erosion of the rural network. Indeed, the £2 million fund for sub-postmasters was tangible evidence of our genuine concern about the network, in particular the smaller sub-offices, many of which are of course in rural areas.

But the detailed operation of the counters business is the responsibility of the Post Office board and counter management—not the Government—and this includes negotiations with sub-postmasters on their remuneration and conditions. However, it remains the Government's policy to encourage and support the counters business in its efforts to increas the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations. It is through success in those efforts that the business can achieve success in the market place to ensure its long-term viability and preservation of the rural network.