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

I have been a Member of the House for almost 30 years and this is the third time that I have been lucky in the ballot and been able to introduce a private Member's Bill in the Chamber. The last time I did so was only a few years ago with a Bill relating to children's seat belts which got on the statute book. Previously, in the 1960s, I was able to introduce a Bill that also got on the statute book. The title of that Bill has always somewhat embarrassed me—the Parish Councils and Burial Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970—but it was much appreciated by parish councillors. I hope that on this third occasion the Antarctic Bill will allow me to have three in a row. I shall take great pride in that, especially with this Bill, which is of such great interest and, I hope, without controversy.

It is not often that the House has been faced with a proposal for legislation dealing with Antarctica. In fact, only twice before has Parliament legislated on Antarctica—back in 1967 with the Antarctic Treaty Act, which provided mainly for the conservation of Antarctic wildlife, and more recently in 1989 with the Antarctic Minerals Act. Therefore, I feel very privileged to be able to bring before the House today a Bill that is fundamental to the long-term protection of Antarctica. The Bill will strengthen considerably environmental protection over that most remote and pristine part of our planet. Antarctica is the seventh continent and it is by far the most unknown.

I am confident that this important issue is one that all hon. Members will feel able to approve. I am grateful for the support that has already been shown by eminent Members of the House who have been kind enough to lend their signatures to the Bill. I hope that the Bill will prove to be uncontentious and I have noted the cross-party support that is already evident.

The primary purpose of my Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic treaty and to do so in a timely fashion, thereby demonstrating to the wider Antarctic community our serious commitment in Britain not only to the conservation of the Antarctic environment but to the Antarctic treaty.

I used the word remote a few moments ago. Yet ever since my fellow north Yorkshireman Captain Cook ventured south to the Antarctic seas in the 1770s, Antarctica has held a special importance and fascination to the United Kingdom. The continent may be remote geographically from the House, but, as a nation, we have always taken particular and significant interest in its well-being and we continue to do so.

Britain was prominent in the early exploitation of Antarctica. Sadly, that was in a somewhat unenlightened environmental era when major inroads were made into the substantial whale and seal stocks of the sub-Antarctic islands and the southern oceans. From those depredations decades ago, a number of species have yet to recover. Britain was also to the fore in what has since been termed the heroic age of exploration, when the early surveyors were confronted with virtually a blank sheet of paper.

Until well into this century, Antarctica lived up its to old name of "Terra australis incognita". British involvement in the exploration has stretched from the journeys of Sir James Clark Ross between 1840 and 1843, through Scott and Shackleton earlier this century to the famous trans-Antarctic expedition of Sir Vivian Fuchs in the 1950s.

The process continues, and only last year those extraordinary men Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Doctor Mike Stroud completed their epic journey on foot between the Weddell and Ross seas. If any of my colleagues in the House have not read the book of their journey, I could not commend it more highly.

To dispel further the notion of remoteness, there are two other important Antarctic elements in which the UK has always been, and remains, heavily involved. Those are Antarctic science and Antarctic politics. Antarctica plays a crucial scientific role in today's world. It acts as a principal template for monitoring the health of the global environment and, suffice it to say, some environmental protection in Antarctica as provided by the environmental protocol is vital to safeguarding that science base.

It would be helpful to the debate if I were to rehearse the part that has been played by the Antarctic treaty and the important position within the treaty system of the new protocol. The Antarctic treaty has often been held up as the model of international co-operation. It has enabled international governance of Antarctica to continue for more than 30 years in a peaceful, non-militarised and co-operative fashion. I remind the House that we are dealing with an area of approximately one tenth of the globe's surface.

The negotiators of the treaty, in which Britain's influence was significant, realised that long-term stability in Antarctica would be possible only if states with an interest in Antarctica were to set aside their differences. If the prospects for peaceful co-operation were to be assured, two fundamental issues needed to be addressed.

The first was a formula to defuse the sovereignty issues in Antarctica and the second was to cocoon Antarctica from whatever issues were engaging the rest of the world—in effect, to draw a political cordon sanitaire around the earth at 60 deg. south latitude. The pie-slice territorial claims in Antarctica, including our own British Antarctic Territory, have accordingly been put in abeyance. If you will forgive my pun, Madam Speaker, they have been put on ice for the duration of the treaty by the simple but ingenious mechanism of article IV. That article preserves existing claims and also existing denials of those claims, while at the same time making it clear that nothing which is done during the life of the treaty can be used to assert, support or deny any existing or new claims.

The treaty parties have studiously isolated Antarctica from the political problems that confront states elsewhere. This has ensured that harmony has prevailed in Antarctica south of 60 deg. south, even when disharmony might reign elsewhere. Certainly for British interests, the continuing success of the Antarctic treaty is crucial.

British Antarctic policy during the past 30 years has been predicated on the view that the most appropriate way for us to manage our affairs in Antarctica with states which dispute our territorial claim and with those which deny all claims is through a strong Antarctic treaty. Anything that might weaken the treaty system would bring with it the danger of reintroducing tensions in that area. That view remains as relevant today as it did in the late 1950s when the treaty was negotiated.

Our strength and commitment to the treaty is, I hope, well known in the House and around the world and it is appreciated by all those other parties. As one of the seven claimant states in Antarctica, Britain was influential in the protracted negotiations that led to the adoption of the treaty and was among the original 12 signatories. Indeed, the UK was the first to deposit its instrument of ratification in May 1960.

Our influence in treaty matters has continued unabated through 17 consultative meetings of the treaty parties, the adoption of over 200 regulatory measures and recommendations and the negotiation of three self-standing international instruments to deal with resource issues on seals, marine living resources and, most recently in 1988, on mineral resources. I shall return to that later. The last instrument was followed by an abrupt change of course early in the following year which precipitated the Antarctic treaty parties into a flurry of negotiations which, fortunately, culminated in the successful emergence of the protocol.

Fundamental to the see-sawing nature of Antarctic politics in recent years has been the question of resources, both renewable and non-renewable. Questions regarding resources strike to the very heart of the Antarctic treaty and they, more than anything else on the Antarctic agenda, have the capacity to increase the tensions that have been held in abeyance by the sovereignty article of the treaty. They carry by implication a political and economic spin-off.

From time to time, Antarctica has been portrayed as some sort of El Dorado, whether one is talking about fisheries resources and the existence of the small crustaceans called krill, off which whales and fish live, or about mineral wealth. Early predictions that the commercial krill harvest from Antarctica would run into many millions of tonnes and would ease the world's protein shortage have not been realised and they seem unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. Many of the statements on hard rock minerals and hydrocarbons in Antarctica were little more than speculation. They were emotively portrayed at times to fuel the environmental debate. Even before the ink was dry on the Antarctic treaty, the signatories were well aware of the resources dilemma. But resolving that issue back in 1959 was more than they could accomplish. The priorities of the day were geopolitical stability, the reduction of cold war friction, non-militarisation and the prohibition of testing or dumping of nuclear material. All other matters but those were secondary.

Subsequently, we have seen how important a role resource questions were to play on the Antarctic agenda, as the treaty parties negotiated conventions on the conservation of seals and marine living resources and the regulation of mineral resources. The latter alone took six years of tough, painstaking negotiation to achieve what was to prove an ephemeral consensus.

If there is a common thread that runs through the issues of Antarctic resources, it is foresight. The treaty parties always realised that it was better to regulate for resource activity ahead of any real demand rather than wait until the demand had become a reality, by which time consensus—the hallmark of the treaty decisions—would at best take an inordinately long time to reach, or at worst become beyond the grasp of the negotiators.

A stark reality that persistently focused the minds of the treaty states towards agreement was always the realisation that lack of consensus meant lack of regulation and that lack of regulation meant a tension-raising free-for-all. That could be in the interests of no one, least of all in the interests of the Antarctic environment.

The protocol to whose ratification the Bill aims to lead the way was born of the effective demise of the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities. If the House will allow me, I should like to refer to it as CRAMRA, which is the universal acronym understood by many people for that convention. Although considered innovative and tough by international environmental law standards, CRAMRA was presentationally flawed. It was portrayed, wrongly we believe, as a miners' charter which would be used for the despoliation and even the rape of Antarctic. In practice, CRAMRA erected so many tiers of regulatory hurdles that any would-be minerals developer would have been hard pressed to have gained the necessary consensus from the treaty parties to open up any sector of Antarctica to mining or hydrocarbon exploration. But the threat was there, no matter how latent. It apparently carried unacceptable risks, at least politically, for some of the parties to the treaty.

CRAMRA was adopted in June 1988, but the consensus created for it was rudely shattered the following spring when France and Australia announced that they would not sign the convention. By 1990 New Zealand, which had already signed, announced that it would not ratify. Such public statements from three claimant states, all of which had to ratify for CRAMRA to come into force, sounded the death knell of the convention. The shattering of consensus brought with it a new potential danger. Rather as in a game of snakes and ladders, lack of consensus promptly returned the treaty parties to square one. No consensus equalled no regulation of the exploration or mining of areas in Antarctica. The minerals free-for-all that CRAMRA was designed to regulate against could once again become at least a political possibility, if not a practical reality.

So late 1989 and 1990 was a difficult period for the treaty parties, which were deprived of their usual consolidation behind consensus. However, again demonstrating a degree of corporate doggedness or ingenuity, the treaty parties began to explore ways to return the system to its customary consensus. It was felt that if agreement did not lie with CRAMRA, it must lie elsewhere.

Diplomatic exploration of a means to solve the minerals debate led the treaty parties to look more widely at environmental protection. In many respects, despite the hostility and antipathy that it generated, CRAMRA had sown many of the environmental seeds from which the protocol was to germinate. Strangely, the Antarctic treaty says almost nothing about environmental protection or conservation. That is not surprising as those were hardly buzz words in the late 1950s. In contrast, much of the subsequent work of the treaty parties has devoted itself to the environment. More than 50 per cent. of the recommendations that have been adopted since 1961 have been directly relevant to environmental protection.

So with the great emphasis on the environment, which we all welcome and have encouraged in the House, one might reasonably question the need for yet another environmental instrument. One could ask what it would do that was not already catered for. One fundamental criticism, and a valid one, which is directed persistently against the treaty system is that too many of its regulations tend to be aimed at encouragement rather than enforcement and that what is clearly needed is a block of tough new mandatory provisions to project the treaty forward into the 21st century.

The United Kingdom and Chile took up the issue by proposing in late 1989 that a special consultative meeting be convened. Its theme was to be comprehensive measures for the protection of the Antarctic environment and its dependent and associated ecosystems. The first such meeting was held in Chile in late 1990. It was followed by three further meetings in Madrid the following year. At the last meeting, the environmental protocol containing the mandatory provisions which the parties had desired was adopted. The treaty parties had returned to consensus and the treaty was again on its customary even keel. Just as 30 years earlier the United Kingdom was the first to ratify the treaty, so the United Kingdom, in the form of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), then Secretary of State for the Environment, was the first to sign the protocol.

The protocol is expressly stated to be supplementary to the treaty. It stems very much from a British initiative and from British drafting. We were not in favour of the free-standing conservation convention then being designed and promoted by a group of the treaty parties. Such a convention would have been overly complex and expensive to operate and would have presented the danger that money would be diverted from the Antarctic science programmes.

Given the dominant role played by the environment in Antarctic affairs, a convention could have ended up competing with the treaty rather than supporting it. The pivotal position of the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting could have been eroded. A free-standing convention, like all conventions, would, as likely as not, have been insufficiently flexible to meet the ever-changing demands that would inevitably be placed upon it.

International legislation needed to be as adaptable as the ever-changing environment that it was attempting to protect. It was believed that a protocol—as framework legislation, with annexes that could be added to or modified—would provide the flexibility required to deal with Antarctic concerns.

The British concept for a protocol was supported by Argentina, Uruguay, Norway and the United States. It was launched at the meeting in Chile and rapidly gained acceptance. Subsequent input—I must single out that from the Norwegian delegation—added considerably to the text.

What does the protocol set out to achieve? It designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science. It sets out strict environmental principles for the protection of Antarctica to ensure that any activities there will have minimum impact. In particular, it requires that most activities in Antarctica shall be subject to environmental assessment before they are even allowed to proceed. The procedures for environmental impact assessment are spelt out in some detail in annex I to the protocol, while three other annexes deal with the conservation of wildlife, waste disposal and management, and the prevention of marine pollution.

As an illustration of the flexibility of the annex approach, a fifth annex on protected areas has since been added to the protocol and the treaty parties have considered, but so far rejected, a proposed annex dealing with tourism. Further work has begun on yet another annex, which deals with liability for damage to the environment, but I guess that that will take some time to negotiate.

Tourism is a fast-growing industry in Antarctica. Last season, about 6,500 tourists visited the region, mostly by cruise ship to the Antarctic peninsula area, which has the easiest access from south America. All the signs are that that trend will continue. There is no disagreement about the fact that tourist activities in Antarctica must be carefully regulated. The formation of a co-ordinating organisation by the tourist industry—the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators—is a welcome development. The regulation of tourism is already catered for.

The protocol explicitly refers to tourism as one of the key activities in Antarctica to which its provisions apply. Having said that, I believe that there may be merit in introducing some additional regulation for tourism, although not by means of a new annex as that is not held to be a sensible way to proceed. Tourism will be debated further in April at the next meeting of parties to the treaty in Japan, when it is hoped that some progress will be made.

On minerals, the protocol is very clear. A single sentence in article VII spells it out and simply prohibits all mineral resource activities in Antarctica other than for scientific research. Such research would include the sort of geological and geophysical studies that are being carried out by the British Antarctic Survey. The protocol includes mechanisms for the review of the mineral ban after 50 years, or before that time if all parties to the treaty agree. The ban will continue unless, or until, a binding legal regime is in place under which a decision can be taken on whether mining is environmentally acceptable.

Ironically, although they approach the minerals issue from opposite corners, the ill-fated minerals convention and the environmental protocol have one important element in common. For the next 50 years, both require a consensus of treaty parties before mineral activities in Antarctica could even be contemplated. That puts the minerals issue on the shelf well into the foreseeable future—one could even say that it does so indefinitely.

The environmental protocol establishes a new institution, the committee for environment protection, which will be a technical and scientific organisation providing advice to parties to the treaty. That additional tier within the treaty system is vital as environmental and scientific issues in Antarctica take on increasingly important roles. The new committee will supplement, but not supplant, the highly valued advice that has been provided to treaty parties by the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research—incidentally, its secretariat is based in Cambridge—which will continue to advise treaty parties as part of its primary function to co-ordinate and direct the thrust of Antarctic science.

The protocol reinforces the treaty's inspection provisions for facilities in Antarctica to ensure political transparency and compliance. It identifies the need for emergency contingency plans to deal with incidents, such as oil spillages and accidents to vessels. During the past few days there was such an accident, but mercifully no one was hurt. Finally, the protocol sets up mechanisms to settle disputes if they cannot be resolved by other means.

The adoption of the protocol in late 1991 was the most radical and far-reaching strengthening of the Antarctic system since the inception of the treaty 30 years before. Without stating as much, parties to the treaty have carried out the very 30-year review that was envisaged in it. They wisely left the carefully crafted formula of the treaty's language intact and bolted on to it, in the form of the protocol, the tough environmental regulations that the treaty had left out. With those new additions and the built-in flexibility inherent in the protocol and its annexes, one hopes that the Antarctic treaty is in sound shape to carry on for at least the next 30 years and longer. It should remain the flagship of international co-operation.

I am afraid that it has taken me a long time to reach this point, but I shall now turn to the Bill and how it deals with the protocol. I mentioned earlier that the primary purpose of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the protocol. First, I must mention those elements of the protocol that are not dealt with in the Bill and the reasons why that is the case. Annexes III and IV of the protocol set out mandatory provisions to deal with waste disposal and management and the prevention of marine pollution. Waste disposal and management is not dealt with because it was thought more practical for them to be set out as conditions on any permit issued by the Secretary of State for a British expedition going to Antarctica or a research station that might be established there. Contravention of those conditions would, therefore, constitute an offence. That is a more satisfactory way to deal with the somewhat technical issues of waste disposal and management.

The second issue that is not covered by the Bill is marine pollution. The text of annex IV of the protocol tracks very closely the provisions of the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, to which the United Kingdom is a party. Its provisions are already implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts and the supplementary regulations under those Acts. We see no need for further primary legislation to deal with marine pollution in Antarctica.

The other three annexes in the protocol are, however, dealt with in the Bill and I shall refer to them later.

I draw attention to the definition of Antarctica in clause 1. The Bill's area of application is that of the Antarctic treaty area—the area of land, sea, ice shelves, air space and continental shelf south of the 60 deg. south latitude. That definition alone is wider than that found in previous United Kingdom legislation on Antarctica because the protocol has a wider ambit than either the treaty or the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activity.

The Bill goes further than the protocol requires in regard to the protection of seals and whales in the Antarctic ocean.

The key principle of the protocol is that activities in Antarctica, governmental and non-governmental, including science and tourism activities, but excluding commercial fishing, should be subject to environmental assessment before they are allowed to take place. The procedures for carrying out those assessments are set out in the protocol. The degree of assessment will depend on the predicted severity of an activity's impact.

It is felt that the most appropriate way to ensure compliance with those obligations is to require that all British expeditions or research stations in Antarctica have an environmental permit from the Secretary of State. Regulations will set out the criteria under which permits will be issued. One such criterion would be that any applicant for a permit must demonstrate that the activities that the expedition will undertake will not have an unacceptable environmental impact and that an appropriate impact assessment has been undertaken. Conditions will be attached to any permit, including, for example, conditions to ensure compliance with the waste disposal provisions of annex HI of the protocol, to which I referred earlier.

Perhaps I should point out that the more traditional view of an expedition, conjuring up ships sailing south to frozen wastes, has nowadays been somewhat eclipsed. Today's expeditions include a growing number of tourist cruise liners. Elements of the Bill—for example, the legislation governing wildlife and protected areas—will, however, extend to all United Kingdom nationals, whether they be scientists in the British Antarctic Survey or tourists, wherever they may be in Antarctica. Vessels or planes that are simply in transit in the Antarctic treaty area or commercial fishing vessels are not to be regarded as expeditions. They will not, therefore, require a permit.

Clause 21 applies British law to British citizens active in any way in the Antarctic. Hon. Members will be aware of the great conflicts concerning the so-called claims on Antarctica—the British claim is overlaid by the Argentinian claim, the Chilean claim and so on. In the case of a prosecution against an individual under what, for the purposes of the debate, I will call the British claim, what would happen if that person sought refuge in Argentinean or Chilean law? Should they not ratify all the convention in exactly the same way as the Bill is trying to do, their laws will be different from British law.

The terms of the protocol bind all the nations that are signatories. Once all the 26 nations have ratified, the terms of the protocol will become binding on them. There are some problems, to which the hon. Member has alluded, and they go further than he suggested. If nationals from a country that was not a signatory to the protocol attempted to carry out activities in some of the unclaimed portions of the continent, it would cause problems of the type that the hon. Gentleman described. If that were to happen, the signatories to the protocol would come together again to see how they could deal collectively with the problem. We have had cases in the past where states that do not approve of this system of collective international co-operation have set up bases in Antarctica. It may be indelicate for me to name them, but their behaviour causes a problem.

One of the more emotive issues raised during the negotiations on the protocol—the issue that set in train those negotiations—was the question of mineral resources in Antarctica. Article VII of the protocol prohibits mineral resource activity, other than scientific research. Article XXV sets out the procedures for any amendments to the protocol, including amendments to the minerals ban. Clause 6 of my Bill deals with the minerals issue. It prohibits all mineral resource activities—in effect, it bans prospecting, exploration and the exploitation of minerals.

The Secretary of State has the power to grant permits, but only in respect of bona fide scientific research, for example, the important studies into geology and geophysics carried out by the British Antarctic Survey, or for obtaining building materials for the construction of a research station or ancillary infrastructure. Even then, the activities in question must have been the subject of an appropriate environmental assessment and a permit must be issued for that activity to be carried out. The permitting procedure for scientific research is, legally, the most appropriate way to deal with this sensitive matter. It leaves the decision as to what is, or is not, scientific research firmly in the hands of the Secretary of State.

The issue of minerals is particularly difficult, because I understand that it can be very difficult to distinguish between an activity carried out for academic science and one carried out for commercial purposes. The physical activity, such as a drilling operation, may be identical in each case. The critical difference between the two lies solely in the purpose, the intent, for which the activity is being carried out.

The determination of whether a particular activity is undertaken for scientific reasons is best done by the Secretary of State, in the light of all available information. I am confident that, under the formula in the Bill, the integrity of Antarctica will be ably safeguarded from potential mineral exploitation by United Kingdom nationals without prejudicing the ability to carry out important scientific research there.

Thirty years ago, the Antarctic treaty parties introduced, under the treaty, agreed measures for the protection of Antarctic flora and fauna. In their time, those measures were the toughest international wildlife regulations and they have stood the test of time. The protocol has done no more than refine those earlier regulations.

The Bill will ensure strict protection for Antarctic wildlife—far stricter than corresponding wildlife law in the United Kingdom. Anyone who saw the recent BBC wildlife series, presented by Sir David Attenborough, called "Life in the Freezer" will have been captivated by the sheer spectacle of Antarctic penguins, seals and whales. It was a most memorable series and the proper conservation of those internationally important wildlife resources is clearly important.

The Bill will make it an offence for any United Kingdom national to disturb, take or kill any mammal or bird in Antarctica. It will prevent them from undertaking commercial sealing or whaling operations in the Antarctic treaty area, although I hasten to add that none is foreseen.

Provision will be made, however, for a permit to allow wildlife to be taken for scientific purposes on the understanding that the guidelines set out in annex II of the protocol will be adhered to. Those stipulate that no more animals or plants should be taken than are strictly necessary. Clause 16 sets out a reporting procedure on the permit which, together with the exchange of information under the Antarctic treaty, should ensure more than adequate transparency to the permit scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the appalling abuse of the international whaling convention by Japan, which consistently takes thousands of whales on the pretext of scientific research. They end up on diners' plates in restaurants in Tokyo and elsewhere. I understand the intentions behind the Bill, but is the right hon. Gentleman certain that the same appalling abuse will not be perpetrated in Antarctica under the guise of scientific research, which is a thin disguise for commercial activities?

Again, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a danger. I share his anxiety about the cover of so-called science which has protected so many whaling activities around the world in recent years. The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in a former incarnation as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was responsible for those matters. The British initiatives over the years to control whaling have played a major part in trying to stop pseudo-scientific whaling. I hope that the Minister will say a little about it when he responds. It is a real danger because it is a matter of interpretation of the protocol. I hope that, through the International Whaling Commission, we shall continue to work hard to stop that pseudo-scientific activity.

Clause 8 prohibits the introduction of non-indigenous animals and plants into Antarctica, except under permit. So the dispensation under which sledge dogs could be used in Antarctica is now almost impossible to justify. They are no longer a vital form of transport in Antarctica. The last three countries to use huskies in Antarctica have all arranged for their dogs to be removed by April. I understand that the 14 sledge dogs that we left at the British Antarctic Survey's Rothera station were airfreighted out of Antarctica this week and will be repatriated in the Hudson bay area of Canada. The House will be pleased to know that they will be kept and used there as a team.

Annex V of the protocol has rationalised the existing plethora of protected areas in Antarctica into two types of sites. The Bill will make entry into Antarctic specially protected areas, referred to as "restricted areas", illegal except with a permit issued by the Secretary of State. Under clause 11, similar provisions will extend to scientific sites set up under the convention on the conservation of antarctic marine living resources to monitor seals, sea birds and penguins.

At first glance, part III may appear to be a strange insertion in a largely environmental Bill, but it is intended to deal with the jurisdictional lacunae. Some five sixths of Antarctica is claimed by some state or other, but one pie slice lying between 150 deg. west and 90 deg. west longitude has never been claimed by any country. While the treaty is in force, no country can claim it. In contrast to the British Antarctic Territory, there is no territorial jurisdiction whatever in that sector of the continent. To ensure that UK nationals who may work in or visit that area are properly subject to law—not just the environmental law under the Bill—the whole of United Kingdom criminal law should apply to UK nationals in that sector. The Bill similarly extends UK jurisdiction to observers and exchange scientists and their accompanying staff designated under the convention on the conservation of antarctic marine living resources. Those two provisions are required by both the treaty and the convention.

A miscellany of clauses deals with offences, proceedings, regulations, entry into force, and repeal of existing legislation. We intend that the two existing pieces of Antarctic legislation—the Antarctic Treaty Act 1967 and the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989—should be repealed. The former would be totally repealed and the latter repealed leaving only one section dealing with jurisdiction with respect to proceedings under the law of the British Antarctic Territory.

I hope that the House agrees that the aim and content of the Bill are laudable. Antarctica may be a far-away land of which we know little, but it is an enormous land mass and we are becoming increasingly aware of its importance. To ensure its long-term protection, we must give it our urgent attention now. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

I am delighted that we are having this debate and that the Bill has been introduced. I fully support it because it represents the culmination of a lot of effort by many people for many years to change the regime and attitudes towards Antarctica. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on the content and drafting of the Bill and the fact that we are now debating it. I confess to having a long-term love affair with Antarctica, which has always greatly inspired and interested me, and I was due to visit Antarctica when the Gulf war broke out. I had to return to the House and oppose the Gulf war, which pleased neither Front Bench, but that is life.

The history of Antarctica and the current feelings towards it are interesting. It has been a place of inspiration to many. We cannot say that Captain Cook discovered it because we do not know who may have gone there previously, but he certainly made people in this country aware of it. His writings show that he was concerned about preserving its wondrous flora and fauna. Much later, Charles Darwin did exactly the same. They recognised that it was a place of wonderment, amazement and research from which we can all gain a great deal of knowledge. That is the main thrust of much of the Bill.

Antarctica has also inspired many other people and it would be wrong to debate it without referring to its impact on British life and literature. The wonderful epic poem by Coleridge, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", is partly based on the voyages of Captain Cook and his knowledge of what went on at that time.

I shall briefly quote the part of the poem in which, after the ancient mariner has left his port in the northern hemisphere and has been driven south by the strong winds, there is this wonderful description:

"And now the Storm-blast came, and he

Was tyranous and strong:

He struck with his o'ertaking wings,

And chased us south along.

With sloping masts and dipping prow,

As who pursued with yell and blow

Still treads the shadow of his foe,

And forward bends his head…

And now there came both mist and snow,

And it grew wondrous cold:

And ice, mast high, came floating by

As green as emerald."

The poem goes on to decribe the horrors of the cold and the later part of the voyage.

There has also been a sordid side to the history of Antarctica—the rapacious attitude of, initially, northern nations and, more latterly, southern nations towards the whale and seal populations there. There has been the appalling destruction of the whale population and the brutality of the whalers, shown in the methods used to kill whales. There has been the near extinction of the blue whale, a 160-tonne mammal which is so big that an elephant could stand on its tongue. The blue whale was destroyed wantonly and totally unnecessarily, often for wasteful purposes.

I honestly believe that if people could understand the intelligence of whales and the communication that they have among themselves, they would not allow whaling to continue for one moment longer. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to the role of the International Whaling Commission and to the need for the protection of whales in the Southern ocean. It will take centuries, long after we are all gone and forgotten, for the blue whale population to get back to even a fraction of what it was in its heyday, and the same applies to the other whales. I strongly believe that we must end whaling once and for all, in all parts of the world. Many nations, such as Norway, Japan and the former Soviet Union, have told lies about the number of whales they have taken. Those lies are utterly to be deplored and we must once again reaffirm our commitment to a total ban on whaling. Whales are extremely intelligent creatures; they can communicate, they have a sense of family and they have a sense of responsibility. We should recognise that.

There has been an uneasy relationship between commercial interests and scientific interests in Antarctica. Many have recognised the potential for genuine scientific and environmental research in Antarctica for many years. The early expeditions by Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton and others recognised the value of Antarctica as a place of research and a place of interest for all of us. The Fuchs expedition in 1957, international geophysical year, paved the way for the Antarctic treaty of 1959, which was a very important document. I was only 10 years old in 1959, but my mother told me about the treaty. We were at the height of the cold war and it would have been logical for the militarisation of the Antarctic to develop then. Indeed, bases were placed in the Antarctic during the second world war because some people realised that it had military potential. In that sense, the 1959 treaty was a remarkable document in declaring the Antarctic a non-military zone of peace. I am not saying that no base has ever had a miliary impact—most of them have such an impact in some sense or another—but the fact that the zone of peace principle is on the face of the treaty has at least meant that there cannot be any military activity there, although I am sure that some of the "scientific" uses have really been for military purposes. Once again, we need to reaffirm that the Antarctic should never be used for any military purpose. Such use could lead to serious threats to the area's ecology, ecosystem and environment.

All those issues came together when many of us strongly opposed the Antarctic Minerals Bill. I shall not repeat the arguments, save to say that it must be understood that the Antarctic ecosystem is very fragile. Antarctica is a dry continent; there is little precipitation. The snow that falls is wind blown and wind drawn for the most part. Antarctica is a place where, if rubbish is left, it remains. If dog faeces are left, they remain. If oil pollution occurs in the ocean, it remains; it does not biodegrade as quickly as it would in a warmer, more northerly climate. Those factors must be borne in mind in the tight definition of who can act and what they can do within the Antarctic.

We must pay an enormous tribute and give great credit to Greenpeace and others around the world who have done so much to expose the nature of the Antarctic bases, the way in which rubbish has been strewn around the place, and the fact that many nations have refused to remove their rubbish and have done quite unnecessary building work around their research stations. I remember the great dispute with the French over the building of their base arid the arguments about the development of one of the British bases. The work of Greenpeace and the visits to Antarctica by the replacement Rainbow Warrior—after the French blew up the first one—have succeeded in drawing attention to the way in which some of the bases are run and have forced countries to clean up their act and take their rubbish home. That is an important aspect of the matter.

I did not support the Antarctic Minerals Bill and I was very pleased when, eventually, the Foreign Secretary confirmed in an answer to me last November that he would ensure that legislation was introduced to repeal the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989. Although I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on introducing the present Bill, I believe that it should have been a Government Bill. However, at least the Bill is here and we are getting it through; that is the important point.

I congratulate those who have drafted the Bill: it is forward looking and unambiguous in its content arid the spirit of the Bill will have widespread support. It is especially commendable and important that jurisdiction under the Bill covers the whole Antarctic treaty area south of the 60th parallel—not only the continental shelf, but all land, water arid ice below that parallel. The Bill's commitment to prohibiting oil and mineral exploitation, except for the purposes of genuine scientific research, is also important.

I understand the wording of the Bill and the intention behind it, but I believe that we must be extremely careful here. Those of us who opposed the Antarctic Minerals Bill did so because we recognised that once one allows exploration to take place for any minerals, whether oil, zinc, manganese, gold or coal, of which there are probably large reserves under the Antarctic, a commercial value is put on the continent and on the potential for exploitation. As surely as night follows day, exploitation would happen at some point.

It is interesting that world public opinion—and I mean genuine public opinion—came together to oppose the idea of mineral exploitation of the Antarctic. It forced the Australian and New Zealand Governments to change their view. Commendable work was done in Santiago in Chile around that time to achieve the intention of stopping exploitation and to look towards the idea of a world scientific park in the Antarctic. The public opinion to which I refer was world wide. Ordinary people all around the globe could understand the importance of preserving this amazing continent in perpetuity, which would help the rest of us to understand things a bit more deeply.

The Bill is also to be commended for including the permit system and controls on entry to and exit from the Antarctic. It should not be difficult to police those provisions, but some resources will be required. A will to do it and, above all, the co-operation of other countries is required.

The open commitment to prevent any commercial whaling or sealing in the treaty area is also welcome and important. The seal population has grown quite a lot and has recovered quite well and in some areas has overtaken the whale population as the consumer of krill. It is important that people do not look on the fish reserves of the Southern ocean as something that can be plundered in the way that the fish stocks of so much of the north have been plundered, causing us to try to conserve them. The krill are there to maintain the ecosystem. If the krill are taken or if large stocks of fish are taken, not only from below the 60th parallel, but from areas near there, there will be a serious problem for the ecosystem of the whole region. We must ban all whaling and sealing in the region in order to allow those wonderful mammals to breed and, hopefully, to regain their former numbers, although I suspect that in the case of the great whales it is a vain hope and is unlikely to happen.

I hope that the Minister can assure us today on the need for a strong diplomatic offensive among the 26 signatories to the treaty to support fully what is happening and to ensure a new approach to the Antarctic. Above all, we must encourage other nations to support the treaty's provisions, sign the protocol and support the protection of the Antarctic. If 26 countries fully endorse all the provisions to protect and control the environment of the Antarctic, but a few do not and decide to put illegal bases in the unclaimed part of the territory and exploit and break the rules, sanctions will have to be applied against them.

It is not just a matter of sanctions, but of understanding and accepting that the world has moved on and the Antarctic does not exist merely to be exploited. The need for a serious and strong diplomatic offensive around the world is important. Greenpeace has done much to heighten world-wide awareness of the Antarctic. It is a two-way process—popular demand combined with Government-to Government relations will, hopefully, protect the Antarctic for ever.

I should like the Minister to tell us what attitude the British Government intend to take at the Kyoto meeting in Japan, which I understand is in April this year, in terms of launching that diplomatic offensive. The last clause in the Bill states that it will become law at a date to be determined by the Secretary of State, which I assume depends on what happens at Kyoto and other meetings. We need an assurance that the Bill will not be passed only to lie for years on the statute book unimplemented because of insufficient approval from other countries. We need to take a lead. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on that. I hope that he will also assure us of continuing Government financial support for the activities of the British Antarctic Survey and its fine record of genuine scientific research in the Antarctic.

The environmental message from the Antarctic is absolutely overwhelming. There is no other place on earth where one can drill for a core sample. In the Soviet research base the deepest possible ice-core samples have been drilled. We can check what the water purity was like as long ago as 500 years, 1,000 years, at the time of the Romans, Christ and before. We can see what we are doing to the planet by studying core samples of ice in the Antarctic. By examining the ice and the laying down of air pockets in it when it was formed, we can also find out about air pollution on the planet. It is horrific that lead pollution from cars in the United States, Britain, Germany and France as well as other countries eventually ends up in the air around the Antarctic.

The discovery by Joe Farman, a member of the British Antarctic Survey, of the problem of ozone depletion was a major breakthrough in the advancement of environmental science. It demonstrated that what we are doing to the ozone layer can lead to the death and destruction of us all. It has already caused serious problems for mammals in the Antarctic region and for sheep in southern Chile and southern Argentina. It has caused skin cancer for people in Australia and New Zealand. It is a terrifying and serious problem. Had that discovery not been made by Joe Farman and the British Antarctic Survey, it would not have been made until much later. We are under pressure to remove all CFCs and ozone-depleting chemicals from production and to prevent their use.

The measurement of the temperature rises that have occurred in the Antarctic shows that, since 1945, the average mean temperature there has risen by 2 deg C—a significant rise. The Antarctic has the largest amount of water locked up in it of anywhere in the world. The Antarctic demonstrates the fragility of the planet and the ecosystem. If we do not use the Antarctic as a place for research, we shall be denying ourselves knowledge that will help us to preserve the planet and what lives on it. The Antarctic can help us to find a sustainable way of living with the environment rather than destroying it.

The Bill is important, as is the Antarctic and the message we can take from it. If we do not grasp the opportunity now and ensure that we relay the message that commercial activities and mineral exploitation in the Antarctic are out of court, we shall have failed in our duty.

I understand the wish for tourism but we must control tourism and the numbers of people entering and leaving the Antarctic territory. I can understand why people want to be tourists in the Antarctic. I should love to go there as a tourist and so, I suspect, would many others. The desire to go to the Antarctic is perfectly understandable, but tourism must be strictly controlled. Ill-equipped tourists turn up in unsuitable ships which then get into difficulty and expect British, Russian or French scientists from the various stations to bail them out. Such tourists leave rubbish, pollution and destruction in their wake. The problem is serious and I hope that the Minister can assure us that, at the Kyoto meeting, there will be serious discussions about the role of tourism and visitors to the Antarctic, the ways in which the numbers can be strictly regulated, the routes that they can take and what they can do.

It would be awful if, having stopped the killing of whales by whalers and prevented the exploitation of minerals by the repeal of the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, we allowed pollution and destruction to follow through people going on Cook's tours to look at icebergs. I want people to be able to visit and see Antarctica, but they will have to recognise that the price to be paid is that they must not touch the environment and must take every piece of rubbish home with them and not leave it to rot for future centuries.

The introduction and passage of the Bill allows us to send out a vital message. Popular demand has been far in advance of parliamentary and political opinion. The work of Greenpeace and many others throughout the world in drawing attention to the importance of the Antarctic should not be underestimated. If we give the Bill a Second Reading today, and it goes into Committee, we shall have made some progress. We can make further use of the Bill by using it as an example of how to preserve the environment in a more general sense. I hope that we shall take that step.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on introducing the Bill. As one would expect, he has chosen a subject of great importance to people worldwide, particularly those who care about the environment and who wish to maintain regions that, to date, have been relatively unspoilt by man's activities. As my right hon. Friend said, those regions are havens for numerous forms of wildlife, many of which are unique to the Antarctic.

I join the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in paying tribute to the British Antarctic Survey. Those of us who met Joe Farman—who first identified the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic more than 10 years ago—and his colleagues when the survey ship visited London a few years ago were impressed by both their enthusiasm and dedication and, above all, their expertise in their chosen profession. Like the hon. Member, I hope that we shall continue to fund Antarctic research at a reasonable level because it provides the baseline for so much environmental research.

The signs of man's activities in the Antarctic are not always something of which to be proud. If the Bill is passed without opposition in the United Kingdom, as I hope it will be, it will put down a marker to the other 25 countries that have signed the protocol. I hope that it will persuade them to ratify the protocol with all speed.

Given our experience of the lack of enforcement of regulations and, in some cases, even the national law, in the European Union, we should be wise to temper our enthusiasm until it is clearly demonstrated that all 26 countries are willing not only to sign the protocol, which they adopted by consensus in 1991, but to ratify it. Having ratified it, they must accept their responsibilities to ensure that the fine words spoken after signing the protocol result in firm action to enforce it.

The UK demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that Antarctica remains unspoiled by being the first to sign the protocol. My right hon. Friend's Bill, if it becomes an Act, will enable us to ratify that protocol. I am glad that the Bill contains provisions to ensure that all waste materials produced as a result of man's activities in Antarctica will be disposed of in a sensible and responsible manner. The recent photographs that we saw in the newspapers, taken not far below the summit of Everest, will provide a constant reminder that the human race cannot be allowed unrestricted access to, and activity in, an area such as Antarctica.

I am pleased that the UK continues to support the concept of a southern ocean whale sanctuary. Whatever arguments we may have in the northern hemisphere about the need to cull whales to preserve fish stocks—a matter which I believe must be looked at rationally where national economies are affected—there can be little argument that a Southern ocean whale sanctuary would provide at least one area of the world where those great creatures could be preserved for the future, free from commercial exploitation, which has bedevilled conservation measures in the northern hemisphere.

I return to my nervousness that some of our partners who signed the protocol will not be as precise as us in their definition of the controls that they intend to exert in Antarctica; nor, I fear, will they be as enthusiastic in enforcing whatever regulations are ultimately agreed. The Bill sets out requirements for British expeditions and scientific research, prohibits mineral extraction and provides protection for historic sites and monuments. I hope that my right hon. Friend has considered widely the effect on tourism in Antarctica. Although it is a modest commercial activity at the moment, tourists increasingly are looking for new areas and new challenges and, while they are a welcome addition to the economies of such places as the Falklands and the southern tip of south America, where ships call on their way south, we have only to look at recent history in Europe to see what effect mass tourism in an uncontrolled manner, motivated purely by commercial considerations, can have on areas which, formerly, were outstandingly beautiful, were managed for the local people and provided a balance between human activity and wildlife.

I understand the attractions of tourism, but all visitors are a potential threat to the territory. However good the rules that are laid down for tourists, experience shows that the greater the number of visits, the greater the threat to wildlife. It is not much good having a rule that says that visitors must not get closer than 5 m to penguin colonies if a tourist ship runs aground and spills 170,000 gallons of diesel oil, as happened in 1989. While most tourist ships try to co-operate to minimise the disturbance to wildlife, it is difficult when zodiac landing craft are ferrying hundreds of eager tourists to the shoreline. Those tourists will have paid several thousands of pounds for the trip and may expect value for money in the form of close acquaintance with the wildlife.

Price alone at the moment may ration the flow of tourists to Antarctica, but in these days of increasingly cheap travel, we cannot assume that mass tourism will not turn its attention to Antarctica, if allowed to do so. Package tours are available from capital cities throughout the world to almost every remote area in the world, which outlines the need for continuing vigilance in this area. The more Antarctica is publicised, the more visitors there will be and the greater will be the threat and the need for effective controls to prevent damage by, for example, carelessness, lack of awareness or plain commercial greed.

My right hon. Friend referred to the fishing industry in Antarctica and the need for balance and control. Again, if we need a warning, we have only to look at what has happened to the fishing industry around our shores and the effect of what I will tactfully call a variable enthusiasm by some of our European partners in enforcing conservation agreements. Krill is the start of the food chain for marine life up to the largest marine mammals. Unless we ensure that it is not over-exploited, we shall see a steady decline in all forms of fish stocks throughout the area. Although it is outside the scope of the Bill, the Falkland Islands has wisely introduced a licensing system, and fishing within its waters is controlled. But if one looks at the areas from where the fishermen obtaining licences come—Japan, Korea and Poland—one will see that travel, with all its attractions, is now much easier and only adequate control of all forms of fishing in Antarctica would be acceptable. It is unthinkable that mankind, for industrial, commercial or tourism activities, should be let loose on one of the last remaining unspoilt areas of our planet.

Like most people, I have to rely on the film reports and the expertise of people such as Sir David Attenborough to understand and appreciate the unique beauty of the Antarctic and its animal and marine inhabitants. Nevertheless, I believe that we have a duty to ourselves and future generations to ensure that the Bill receives a speedy passage through Parliament. I hope that its passage will enable the Government to bring pressure on other signatories to the protocol and that the Government will then take the necessary steps to ratify it.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his expertise and foresight in bringing the Bill before the House today. I hope that we shall speed it on its way.

When I looked at the first clause of the Bill, with its definition of Antarctica as

"all land, ice shelves, sea, continental shelf and airspace south of 60 degrees South latitude",

I could not help but reflect that, if I were to look at a minor image for the northern hemisphere, I would find that a substantial part of my constituency might be defined as Arctic rather than Antarctic. The House might then understand that, to get back to my constituency before tomorrow morning, I may find it necessary to leave before the end of the debate.

I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on having had the good sense to introduce the Bill. It is clear from the contributions to the debate, and by looking at the sponsors of the Bill, that it has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) is in his place. I notice that he is a sponsor of the Bill.

Many of us are pleased to see the Bill, but I take the point made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) that simply passing it is only part of the story. It is important that the United Kingdom Government go on to ratify the protocol, but every encouragement must be given to other signatories to the protocol so that they ratify it, too.

It would be churlish to say that perhaps the Government should have introduced the Bill. It would be unfair to labour that point when the whole House should be pleased that there has been a considerable change of heart in the Government.

Many of us also took part in the discussions and protections on the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989. On that occasion, there was no consensus in the House, and many of us were critical of the Government's stance in wanting to allow mineral exploitation in Antarctica. Many of us perceived a lack of understanding about how damaging to the Antarctic environment a major engineering project, such as mineral exploration and exploitation, could be. Many of us warned at the time that Britain was becoming increasingly isolated in persisting with the minerals agreement when one country after another was backing away from it.

Therefore, we were pleasantly pleased—perhaps surprised is putting it too strongly—that the Government's attitude towards Antarctica seemed to change dramatically. Perhaps that was because of a change of Prime Minister—who knows? Mineral exploitation or mineral excavation is now permitted only for scientific purposes, which cannot be altered for at least 50 years without the unanimous agreement of all parties. That is a welcome step forward.

The Government are also to be congratulated on going beyond the protocol, as I understand it, and allowing provision in the Bill for protection of all mammals—which, of course, will include whales. I believe that, under the international arrangements, the position of whales is a matter for the international whaling convention, rather than for the Antarctic contracting treaty powers. Nevertheless, the provision clearly indicates that the United Kingdom Government would welcome the idea of a whale sanctuary in Antarctic waters. That, too, is welcome.

As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) pointed out in an intervention—

Britain and Malaysia have worked hard together over the past 10 years to set our relations on an excellent footing. Trade last year reached the highest total ever—£965 million, up 52 per cent. on 1992. We want to preserve our excellent relationship.

The Government very much regret the decision taken by the Malaysian Government to ban new contracts with British companies bidding for Government business in Malaysia. The problem arises from what Malaysia perceives as unfair reporting by the British press of affairs relating to Malaysia. There is no good reason for the Malaysians to make a connection between British press reporting and the conduct of trade between Britain and Malaysia. Trade is justified on its own merits to the benefit of both countries.

In Britain, the press is free; the Government cannot control what the press reports, and do not seek to do so. The Malaysian Government understand that.

We are in close touch with the Malaysian authorities, and with British businesses, and hope to restore Malaysian relations to a flourishing footing as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister of State for making his statement.

These are very important—indeed, in some respects unprecedented—events, affecting British trade and perhaps thousands of British jobs. It is exactly the handling of the events surrounding the financing of the Pergau dam project that have brought the matter to a head.

Because the Foreign Secretary overruled the decision of his own accounting officer in respect of a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money, which the accounting officer described as an abuse of our aid budget; because the Foreign Secretary denied that there was any link with an arms deal with Malaysia—a statement that we now know to be untrue; because, at every stage as this event has unfolded, the Government have sought not only to deny the House information, but at times to give misleading information in answer to questions—is it not clear that it is because of that conduct by the Government that we now face these serious circumstances?

Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members believe that links between our overseas aid budget and a formula for the cost of defence deals constitute a clear breach of law, contrary to the Overseas Aid Act 1966 and the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980? Is it not clear that, if councillors were behaving in this cavalier fashion, Conservative Members would be the first to call for them to be disqualified from office and personally surcharged?

Is it true that, at the same time as British companies were involved in discussions about aspects of the Pergau dam project contracts, some of those same companies were involved in discussions about aspects of the arms deal? Does the Minister really expect the House and the country to believe that these things were being done separately, without knowledge of the one being linked to knowledge of the other, in companies such as Trafalgar House and GEC? Are we really expected to believe that?

Is the country expected to believe that expenditure of a quarter of a billion pounds of taxpayers' money was being promised to a Government at the same time as an arms deal was being negotiated with that Government, and that there was no link between the two? Those are incredible statements.

It is precisely because this whole squalid business has started to unravel following legitimate investigations by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Members of Parliament and the British media—who are perfectly entitled to ask questions about these matters—that British trade and British jobs are now at risk; and the responsibility lies with those on the Government Front Bench.

The Malaysian Government have made it clear that the problem has arisen not, as the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) alleged, from our handling of the Pergau dam project—which Malaysia welcomed as a contribution to its development—but from what Malaysia perceives as unfair reporting by the British press of affairs relating to Malaysia.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the matter of my right hon. Friend's overruling the Overseas Development Administration's accounting officer. My right hon. Friend looked at the project in the light of our commitment to continue to assist Malaysia's development, and in the wider context of our overall bilateral relationship with Malaysia. If we had backed out, that relationship would undoubtedly have been damaged.

The Malaysians placed great importance on the Pergau project as a contribution to their national development and diversification of their energy sources. It is the Government's task to promote the national interest, including exports and jobs. I recognise that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's job, as he sees it.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the possibility of a link between the aid offer and defence sales. The Malaysians raised this with us in 1988, in the context of negotiations over the 1988 memorandum of understanding on defence sales. The then Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Malaysian Finance Minister in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales. We made it clear on several occasions in 1988 that we were willing to consider aid for civil projects. The September 1988 memorandum of understanding with Malaysia on defence matters makes no mention of overseas aid.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the documents for the Foreign Affairs Committee. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that he will co-operate fully with the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry. He has sent the Committee a full and detailed memorandum, and both he and the Minister for Overseas Development will be giving oral evidence to the Committee.

I repeat that it is our wish to restore relations with Malaysia to a harmonious footing, in the interests of both countries and the people who work for firms doing business there. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman may not wish to join us in that task.

It may interest the House to know that I spent some 15 years of my working life trying to export the construction industry and its products to various parts of the world. I suggest that the only people who should take comfort from the present exchange are our competitors overseas. They are well aware that, in any export industry, the same rules do not normally apply in other countries as apply here; and there is a lesser understanding of our standards in this country.

Would it not be better, however, if, in their desperate attempts to smear the Government, the Opposition waited until after the inquiry? While Opposition Members may glory in the present embarrassment between the two countries, the net result is lost jobs, which are clearly of no concern to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).

I agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks with great knowledge of those matters.

I entirely agree with the opening statement by the Minister. Is it the case, however, that the objections that the Malaysian Government have raised are to British press stories about funds paid, allegedly, by British contractors into Swiss bank accounts on behalf of Malaysian politicians? If so, none of us is in a position to know whether those stories are true or untrue, but it is surely up to the Malaysian Government to respond to them. The blast of blather from Malaysia this morning suggests that they may have something to hide.

Does the Minister accept that, a few years ago, an editor of a major newspaper in Kuala Lumpur was jailed for two years without trial for writing stories that were inconvenient to the Government, and will he make it clear that, much though we may be tempted, that is not how we do things here?

Does the Minister also accept that, although there may be Members of Parliament who imagine that kickbacks or misuse of aid funds or arms deals are legitimate if one is pursuing business and jobs, the policy of Her Majesty's Government remains that of good governance—transparency, accountability and freedom of the press—and that we shall wish to return to those matters in the debate on Tuesday?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support of what I said in my statement. He is right to say that I have no responsibility for what appears in the British national press, and that remedies are available to the Malaysian Government if they seek to use them.

I am a member of the Committee on Public Accounts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has upset the Malaysian Government, understandably, is the suggestion in some parts of the British press—fanned by some Opposition Members, unfortunately—that there has been corruption; or, alternatively, that the deal between Britain and Malaysia was illegal? Is he further aware that there was nothing illegal about the deal that was done with Malaysia? There is nothing in the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 that would demonstrate that any such deal was illegal.

Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the reason why Sir Tim Lankester, the former permanent secretary, quite properly sought a direction from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was that he was questioning the economy and efficiency of that specific provision of overseas aid to Malaysia?

Is he further aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave Sir Tim Lankester a direction, which he was properly entitled to give as Foreign Secretary, and that he gave that direction because he did not wish to renege on undertakings entered into between the then British Prime Minister and Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamed, the Malaysian Prime Minister, at their joint meeting?

My hon. Friend is correct on the subject of legality and, as I said earlier, he is also correct to say that my right hon. Friend considered the project in the light of our commitment to continue to assist Malaysia's development, and in the wider context of our overall bilateral relationship with Malaysia.

This is bad news from Malaysia, and no one can do anything but regret it, but will the Minister, first, make it plain to the Malaysian Government that trade is a two-way thing, and that we have been running a persistent deficit in our trade with Malaysia?

Secondly, will he continue to make it plain to the Malaysian Government that the Government here control neither the British press nor the debates or questions that are raised in the House of Commons?

Finally, will he assure the House and the country that Foreign Office Ministers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to co-operate with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in its inquiries into the Pergau dam and all that is associated with it?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks about co-operation with the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is right to say that there is no good reason for the Malaysians to make a connection between British press reporting and the conduct of trade between Britain and Malaysia. He is also right about the nature of the trade deficit and, as I have said, we are not responsible for what the British press reports or for what is said in this place.

Does the Minister agree that the House perhaps would be wise, before jumping to conclusions, to await the report of the Select Committee, which is inquiring into this matter, and which will cross-examine two Ministers next week?

Will he also convey two messages? Will he convey a message to the Government of Malaysia that many people in British industry will be perplexed, under the freedoms that we enjoy in this country, to find their jobs put at risk because of the activities of a free press, which we believe to be essential to our liberties?

Will the Minister also convey a message to the press, reminding them of the need for responsible reporting in view of the way in which some countries in practice, and perhaps in an irritating way, respond to irresponsible reporting? Will he suggest to those newspapers which have made allegations that, if they have evidence, they ought to produce it, and that, if they have not, they ought to withdraw the allegations?

My right hon. Friend is right to say that the House should not jump to any conclusions in advance of the report of the Select Committee, and I do not imagine that the House would wish to jump to any conclusions. He is also right to say that people will be bewildered that their jobs should be put at risk by press reporting, and he is obviously right to reflect that accurate and responsible reporting is very important to this country's reputation. I believe that responsible people in the media would share that view.

May I, as the Member of Parliament who was responsible for debriefing the original Pergau informants in 1989, and who asked the National Audit Office to carry out the inquiry that subsequently took place, tell the Minister that key questions remain unanswered?

One question is, why was the contract driven through in favour of those companies against the advice of the World bank, of people in the environmental movement and of people in the Overseas Development Administration itself? Even in the Foreign Office there was division; there was division in the Department of Trade and Industry; there were people in the Treasury challenging the decision that was being taken. Why was it driven through when everyone else was advising that the project should have been based on a gas-fired power station, which is indeed business that Britain would have won? Why cannot we have those questions answered at this stage?

Is it not important for the Malaysian Government to realise that the reason why British Members of Parliament are asking questions on the issue, and why the British media are running with the story, is that everyone knows that the project was an abuse—an abuse of Britain's aid budget, of money that should have been sent to third-world countries to help people who were in real need?

The responsibility for the decision was not in the hands of the World bank, of environmental groups or anyone else. The responsibility was that of the British Government. My right hon. Friend considered the project in the light of our commitment to continue to assist Malaysia. The Malaysians placed very great importance on the Pergau project, as a contribution to their national development and diversification of their energy sources. We have diversified energy sources ourselves in this country.

There was nothing illegitimate about using aid and trade provision. It was introduced by the Labour Government in 1977 precisely for that type of project. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Labour party is now abandoning the use of ATP? Perhaps we should be told.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in Commonwealth terms, this fracas is most distressing? Would not both countries have an immense amount to lose from a trade war? Will he convey a third message to the Malaysian Government—that, under United Kingdom law, it is perfectly open for the Ministers against whom allegations have been made to sue the British press?

My hon. Friend is right on his latter point. On his former point, of course this is regrettable in the Commonwealth context, and I hope that our relations will return to harmonious and fruitful paths as soon as possible.

Is it not a fact that it is the Foreign Secretary, not a journalist, who is personally responsible for the threat to British exports and jobs, because it was the Foreign Secretary who had Sir Tim Lankester read a statement to the Public Accounts Committee, linking British exports with the Pergau dam affair?

I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the exchanges that have taken place in the Chamber in the past 20 minutes. The problem arises not from the British Government's handling of the Pergau dam project, which Malaysia welcomed as a contribution to its development, but from what Malaysia perceives as unfair reporting by the British press of affairs relating to Malaysia. Any attempt by the hon. Gentleman to distort the truth of the matter is, I am afraid, bound to fail.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the top priority for the Foreign Office is to restore relations with the fastest growing economy in that part of the world, that it is best done by time and patient, quiet diplomacy, and that our excellent high commissioner should be encouraged to get on with it? Does he agree that companies such as British Aerospace are exporting at the front of technology, and that it is greatly in the interests of such a Commonwealth country that it should benefit from their products? Will he remind the Malaysian Government that British Aerospace is creating vital jobs in Malaysia?

Yes, indeed: my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trade stands or falls on its own merits and is, by its nature, to the benefit of both parties involved. British Aerospace is certainly a good case in point.

May we have some clarification? The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) claimed that the deal was not illegitimate but, in his initial statement, the Minister told us that there was no deal and that the matter was merely coincidental. Was it coincidental, or was there a deal?

What my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said, which I said was correct, was that there was nothing illegal about the grant of aid and trade provision for the Pergau dam project.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a pretty shameful day for British jobs when Opposition Members admit knowing that the effect of their actions will be to destroy jobs? Is he aware that in Hampshire, close to my constituency, many jobs depend on foreign orders? Will he take it from me that the people employed in the companies involved appreciate his efforts and those of the Government to continue to sell British industry abroad? Will he guarantee that those efforts will continue undiminished?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We shall continue to work as hard as we can to promote British exports, which are doing extremely well in Asia, and to sell Britain abroad. He is right to point out that Opposition Members are interested only in selling Britain short.

Will the Minister stop confusing the message with the messenger? Does he accept that the questions being asked in the British press are wholly legitimate and proper questions about the conduct of public affairs and the use of public money? Will he decide once and for all and tell us that the Government are not prepared to condone sleaze, corruption or backhanders in any shape or form anywhere in the world, especially if British companies and the Government' s own policy decisions are involved?

Of course we do not condone sleaze or corruption; nor have the British Government been involved in any such thing. I have already said that we are not responsible for what appears in the British press, but that accurate and responsible reporting is very important to this country's reputation.

If the allegations made in the British press, especially in the Sunday press, have any substance, should not such evidence be made available straight away? If there is no such evidence, should not the press apologise to the Malaysian Government?

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Does not the Minister realise that the whole overseas aid budget has been cut by half since 1979, and that what we are objecting to in particular is the misuse of aid and trade provision? This case, in addition to many others which I believe the National Audit Office is at present examining, is a reason for an inquiry to be held into the use of aid and trade provision. Should it not be kept separate by the Department of Trade and Industry from the activities of the ODA? Was it not a lack of development soundness as much as anything else which the permanent secretary of the ODA and Lady Chalker were questioning at the time?

The hon. Lady's initial statistics are, to say the least, a little misleading. In fact, our overall aid has gone up by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1987. She mentioned aid and trade provision, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 1977, and which currently accounts for approximately 5 per cent. of our overseas aid programme. We give a higher proportion of our aid budget to the poorest countries than other major donors, although one might not think so from listening to the hon. Lady.

Our major competitors use tied aid to win contracts overseas and we cannot allow British industry to be at a disadvantage. To date, some £3.9 billion of British exports has been won through aid and trade provision since the scheme started—272 projects in 50 countries worldwide since 1977. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady may not like it, but she has to listen. If it is the purpose of the hon. Lady and the Labour Party to cease this form of aid, we should like to hear about it; otherwise, they should stop carping about it.

rose—

Order. Hon. Members are rising on both sides of the House who were not here for the statement. I have said before that hon. Members must be here to hear the statement before I can call them.

Will my right hon. Friend contrast the interesting difference between the very measured and responsible utterance of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the frenzied and exaggerated hysteria of the shadow Front Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), and others, especially the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), when crucial British jobs and exports are at stake?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of this is the fault of the present Government? [Interruption.] Yes, that is so. Will my right hon. Friend convey to the excellent Government of Malaysia the fact that we too have suffered at the hands of a wholly free and irresponsible press, which is not under the control of the British Government, and that the British Government and British companies are most anxious to continue to promote the modernisation and development of Malaysia and that it is one of our most sincere objectives?

I do not wish to drive wedges between the two right hon. Gentlemen, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we should now try to restore our relationship with Malaysia to its former fruitful state, to the benefit of both countries.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not desirable anywhere, and not possible in this country, to control the press? Will he also confirm that, if British contracts are not signed, even though they might provide the best value for Malaysia, it is probably an offence against GATT and not in the interests of the Malaysian people? Does he agree that those who want to have clean hands while digging in the graveyard of British jobs will not be very convincing?

As always, my hon. Friend's points reflect his great knowledge of these matters. He is right to highlight the cavalier attitude towards British jobs shown by Labour Members.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many Conservative Members want more linkage between British jobs and foreign aid? Does he also agree that the present problem is with the press in this country, especially the foreign-owned press, which seems to have little regard for British jobs? Does he further agree that it might well have something to do with the comments made by the Malaysian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister at a recent meeting, rather than with the British Government and recent contracts?

Accurate and responsible reporting is important, whatever the ownership of the press involved.

Everyone will recall that, on the last occasion that relations between Malaysia and Britain were at a low ebb, it was because of the policies of the present Government, so we take no blame for their mismanagement of our relations with Malaysia. We of course deplore the threat to trade and jobs in this country, as I said at the outset, but we shall take no lessons about threats to jobs from a Government under whom there are still 2.8 million people in receipt of benefits and many more unemployed. For every year that they have been in office, they have had many more people unemployed than the last Labour Government ever had. That is the reality.

May I say to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—and his raucous supporters—that it will never be possible to build a successful economy and stable and secure jobs on squalid, if not illegal, deals like this. Of course we all need a responsible press in any democracy; but even more in Britain, we need the responsible conduct of government in the interests of the people.

This morning, the right hon. Gentleman seems to be rather a late convert to the interests of British workers and British jobs. It has suddenly occurred to him that he should say something about the matter. I am sure that he will not be pleased that unemployment in this country is falling as it is, and that we are doing so much better than our European competitors. It is feeble to complain about what the right hon. Gentleman called "raucous supporters" on this side of the House: I fear that he may be rather embarrassed that he has so little support on his side.

As I said, Britain and Malaysia have worked hard together over the past few years to develop an excellent relationship, with very high levels of trade in each direction. We are determined to preserve that excellent relationship, and we do not expect any assistance from the Opposition Benches.

rose—

Order. We must now move on.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This statement was most important to me, because jobs in my constituency could certainly be at stake, as it is extremely important in other constituencies, for that reason and for many more. However, the statement was not notified to 3 Dean's yard where my office is and, therefore, not to me. Although I asked the attendant on duty if she knew about the statement, she said that she did not, and nothing came through. Could you look into the matter and ensure that that never happens again, bearing in mind the great importance of a matter like this, and any other statement?

I am sure that the statement has been on all annunciators since 10 o'clock this morning. However, if the hon. Gentleman will let me know the annunciator that he looked at, I will have it examined. I call Mr. Wallace.

It was not on the annunciator that I looked at.

Order. I just made the point that it was on all the annunciators that I saw. If the hon. Gentleman says that it was not on his annunciator, I will have it examined.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope the fact that you did not call me on the statement does not mean that you thought that I was not present for it, because in fact I was present at the start.

Hon. Members need not raise these points of order. The two hon. Gentlemen I referred to—I will not mention their names so as not to embarrass them—knew exactly whom I meant, and did not rise after I said what I did. We are a little subtle in the Chamber—not very often, but sometimes.

I was talking about the welcome steps that the Government have taken to include in the Bill the protection of all mammals, which of course will include whales. I ask the Minister what the position will be with regard to fish, because reference has already been made to the importance of krill, especially in the food chain.

I note in clause 3(2)(b) that the requirement for a permit will not apply to persons who are entering or remaining in Antarctica for the sole purpose of fishing for profit. I think that we are all well aware—indeed, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, having previously been a Fisheries Minister, will be only too aware of this—of the importance of the conservation of fishery stocks arid how difficult conservation can be.

We want to know what arrangements are in place for the conservation of fishery stocks in the Antarctic area. It is clear that a free-for-all would not be in anyone's interest, let alone those of the fishermen who wish to continue to fish in these waters.

I turn to some of the specific provisions of the protocol and the Bill. It is clear that the protocol addresses the issue of environmental impact assessments, although they are not specifically mentioned in the Bill. I understand that, in granting permits, the requirement for environmental impact assessments will be a condition attached to the permit. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.

I ask the Minister to indicate just how he envisages environmental impact assessments being carried out. I assume that they will have to be carried out before a permit is granted, and that some presentation will need to be given. Perhaps the Minister could make that clear.

Who will determine whether certain criteria have been met and are covered by the environmental impact assessment? Indeed, will that apply to those who are seeking a permit? For example, it may be the British Antarctic Survey. We know that an airstrip was built at Rothera station in the late 1980s. At that stage, the requirements for environmental evaluation were gone through.

Will the British Government be the judge and jury on an application from a British Government agency? That need not necessarily mean that there will be anything improper about that, but we would be grateful for a reassurance about the way in which such applications will be dealt with.

The two areas that are left out of the Bill, which have already been referred to, relate to waste disposal and management. As the hon. Member for Islington, North pointed out, waste is an important issue when the speed of biodegradability is slow. Indeed, Greenpeace must be congratulated on pointing out exactly what damage can be done simply by sewage effluent. Although the Bill does not refer to that, some reassurance that conditions on waste disposal will be part of the permits granted for expeditions would be welcome.

May I enter a caveat about the final part of the protocol relating to marine pollution? There have been serious oil spills in Antarctica. Having had some experience of dealing with marine pollution in the northern hemisphere and in northern waters, I am concerned that the Merchant Shipping Acts, even the international regime that applies under the marine pollution convention, can be weak when it comes to enforcement.

I will not go into all the details, but for some time I have been pursuing with the Department of Transport the case of a Greek vessel which was photographed and videoed discharging garbage into northern waters contrary to the MARPOL convention. Basically, it is now accepted by the Department of Transport and the Foreign Office that little can be done to bring those responsible to account for that, because of lack of evidence or because it appears that the international regime is weak when it comes to enforcement. We want the means of enforcement strengthened when there are incidents of marine pollution, particularly in Antarctica.

All hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned tourism. The useful brief provided by the research staff in the Library gives a figure from the United States Natural Science Foundation. The foundation projected that it expected some 8,460 United States tourists in the 1993–94 season. I thought that was a very precise figure. I share the view that has already been expressed, that there is a great attraction to going to Antarctica—I would like to go there myself some time. Equally, there is concern that, if tourism got out of hand, it could do considerable damage to a very sensitive biological and wildlife area.

It is clear that the protocol is intended to deal with tourists. It is clear from the Bill that any tourists wishing to travel to Antarctica, either on their own or as part of a group, will require a permit. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have a policy for restricting or otherwise controlling the number of United Kingdom citizens who wish to visit Antarctica, and the kind of conditions that they envisage will apply to British tourists to that part of the world.

As to the granting of permits—many parts of the Bill relate to this—I hope that we can have a commitment to openness, especially when permits are refused. It would be useful for those who have had a permit refused to know the reasons why it was refused. In one sense, that might discourage repeat applications, if it were clear that a policy or pattern were emerging, and that there were certain kinds of expeditions which clearly the Government were keen should not take place, perhaps for good reasons. It would be helpful if that was all above board.

Non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, may want to mount expeditions to see whether everything is going on in Antarctica as we have been assured that it ought to, and that the requirements and treaty obligations are being fulfilled. One would hope in those circumstances that such organisations would be permitted to go, and it would be useful to have some guidance on that.

The hon. Gentleman is on to an extremely important point. There is a danger of abuse with any system where there is no appeal. If the Government, or any Government, felt that the presence of Greenpeace was not conducive to that Government's interests—never mind the interests of the natural environment—they might refuse a permit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be some type of appellate system?

I take that point. Although clause 14 allows

"for appeals against the revocation or suspension of permits",

it does not appear to make any provision for appeal against the refusal of a permit. Perhaps that important area could be examined in Committee.

I am sure that amendments could be tabled so that the matter could be discussed in Committee, because that is a valid point. No one at this stage is suggesting bad faith—least of all in a Bill for which there seems to be lot of commitment to achieving the objectives of the environmental protocol—but some openness when permits are refused, combined with an appeal system, would give reassurances.

I raise one final point of detail about the Bill, as someone with a qualification in Scots law. It is clear that those who have drafted the Bill have been cognisant of the fact that Scots law does differ, and specific provisions are made for Scottish partnerships.

I note that clause 21 states that, where a UK national does or omits to do anything in the given area which would have constituted an offence under the law of any part of the UK if it had occurred in that part,

"he shall be guilty of the like offence as if the act or omission had taken place in that part".

Under which jurisdiction or which law would that apply?

I will take a hypothetical example. Suppose that, in three or four years' time, a person is found in possession of cannabis in that area. We know that the Home Secretary is proposing a maximum fine of £2,500 in England and Wales, whereas a Scottish Office consultation document brought out last week proposes a fiscal fine of £25. There is a world of difference, and I would like to know which jurisdiction would apply in such causes.

That is a fine legal point, but we should always be on guard in the House when dealing with the historic basis of Scots law, to make sure that it is not automatically subsumed into a different legal system.

The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale stated that the Antarctic treaties were models of international co-operation. That certainly has been proved during many years. Following the breakdown after the lack of ratification of the minerals agreement, a new regime was quickly put in its place. That is a tribute to all the participating countries, and it is a recognition of the global importance of Antarctica.

It is also important that the area has not become a place of competing political interests; above all, it is important globally for the scientific research which can be undertaken there. Issues such as global warming and the ozone layer are critical to all humanity, and it is important for us to preserve perhaps the only genuine wilderness area left in the world.

I am glad that the Government appear to have given a commitment, and the Bill embodies it. I am sure that the Bill will have a warm welcome, and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

It is widely recognised that when we deal with private Members' legislation in the House we often have a more interesting time than when we deal with other matters. That is certainly true this morning.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), not only on picking this measure, but on moving its Second Reading so well in the House today. He is a very wily right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members know that private Members' legislation can occasionally be a trap. On being selected in the ballot, it is tempting to secure a measure that is perhaps provocative. It sounds exciting at the time, but one lives to regret it. One may provoke constituents, and there can be a huge mailbag. There can be all sorts of difficulties on the Floor of the House and a tedious time in Committee.

My right hon. Friend has managed to select a piece of legislation for a part of the world which is far removed from his constituency. He has no constituents there who will write to him to complain about it. The penguins, whom the legislation will doubtless benefit, cannot correspond with him. They cannot even write to congratulate him on his measure.

My right hon. Friend is wily because he got there before I did. I would probably have selected his measure, but I was obliged to go for a different measure which also appears on the Order Paper today. It is perhaps a shame that my right hon. Friend's Bill dealing with Antarctica does not address the problem that I attempted to address with the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill, because the problem will still apply.

If a tribunal in Antarctica were to sit and the chairman had not been appointed by the Lord Chancellor, that tribunal would not come within the ambit of the parliamentary commissioner, as currently happens in the United Kingdom. That would be a problem not only in Britain, but in Antarctica as well. The other measure before the House today would be of great benefit to my right hon. Friend's Bill because it would increase scrutiny on an exceptionally important point.

The main concern of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—I am sure that it could be extended to the area covered by my right hon. Friend's Bill—is social security appeals tribunals, and there may be some scientists who work for us in the Antarctic to whom this would apply—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to be a little more ingenious if he is to convince me that this is relevant to the Second Reading of the Bill.

I shall, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am making is that those people who perhaps fall within the need for the parliamentary commissioner would find it important to have my measure applied there also. I have made my point, and I will not attempt to engage in a different Second Reading debate for another measure.

Although Antarctica is remote, we have heard thoughtful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and from the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) which have emphasised that it is in many other senses extremely close to home. That is not just because it is a part of the world in which Britain has always had great interest. We were instrumental in discovering Antarctica and in getting it recorded in geography and history. Since then, Britain has taken a great interest in exploration, and we have participated with many countries in scientific experiments there. These have all been of great benefit. There has been a history of co-operation in an area where there could well have been conflict.

The House should note a rather interesting lesson. Competing claims have been made on that continent by many different nations, but we have managed its affairs to the extent that there has been no real conflict. We have quietly left the problems on one side and got on with the business of ensuring that scientific research is carried out properly and in an ordered way. It is important that the measure is introduced now because there was a great risk if we did not do so that, having been in the forefront of co-operative work with other nations in the Antarctic and having been the first country to sign the protocol, it would look as though we were laggards. I understand the pressure of parliamentary time on introducing legislation which may not appear to be in the forefront of the public interest or the public's mind, but I am glad that we now have the opportunity to put it right. I welcome my hon. Friend's Bill for that reason.

As right hon. and hon. Members have explained, Antarctica is a fascinating place. Not only is it virtually the last wilderness in the world but it is the place where 70 per cent. of the world's fresh water supply exists. The penalty for not getting right our policy on a part of the world that is such an ecological jewel would be high. I read in my research for the debate the rather interesting if somewhat nerve-wracking point that if the Antarctic ice shield melted the water level across the world would rise by some 65 m. It would not be possible to have a debate in the House on the consequences of such a disaster, should it occur, but it is a serious matter because the consequences of getting our policy wrong in Antarctica would affect all of us, no matter how far we may be from it, and we can already see changes happening.

We can see what has happened during the development of the industrialised world from the ice cores that have been taken from Antarctica. We have seen two things. One is the problem of lead pollution which, surprisingly, has already reached that subcontinent. The hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned that. He did not mention, but I shall, that the ice cores also show that since the developed world moved to unleaded petrol, the problem has improved. So we see the consequences of an irresponsible policy but we can also map out in Antarctica what happens once we put those policies right.

Our policy is important from not only a scientific point of view and in terms of lead pollution. Most of the studies on holes in the ozone layer take place in Antarctica. It is the right place for it. I am not one of those people who believe in the Armageddon theory of what might happen if holes appear in the ozone layer from time to time. Let us remember that it is only 20 years or so since the phenomenon was observed. I am not at all certain that we are seeing it for the first time in our history. Perhaps added research in places such as Antarctica will tell us whether ozone holes are a passing phenomenon that we should ignore or a permanent difficulty that we must tackle. The mood now is that the phenomenon must be tackled. That is probably the right judgment. However, continuing work by our scientists in Antarctica will tell us whether it is a permanent problem or merely something that occurs from time to time.

Much other work is done in Antarctica. The protection of that work, the need to ensure that it continues in an unpolluted atmosphere and the regard that we must have for wildlife there is paramount. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale deal with the matter of controls. When I read the Bill I was concerned that the terms of the permits to be issued for a range of activities were not set out in primary legislation. I came to the early and perhaps uncharitable conclusion that that was to avoid difficulty. I thought that the permits might not address the regulatory framework in the way they should. I was worried that they might not be tight enough and that we might be getting away from our obligations under the protocol. I was therefore extremely pleased to hear my right hon. Friend set out the reasons for that.

I accept entirely that a wide range of circumstances can affect the permits that will be granted to scientists to carry out work. The permits will affect the ways in which waste is dealt with and environmental impact studies. I am persuaded by my right hon. Friend's speech that those matters can vary from time to time. It is important to have flexibility in the arrangements. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will comment on that. I hope that he will be able to confirm that the spirit in which the Government approaches the framing of the permits will be tight rather than lax. I hope that the Government will set firm standards which match the protocol. If we could have that undertaking from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, I should be extremely grateful.

Tourism has been mentioned. I have a feeling that the 8,000 or so—a very precise figure was given—tourists that it is estimated will go to Antarctica from the United States are but the thin end of the wedge. I do not object to such tourism. The more people who are able to experience at first hand the wonders of a continent that have been displayed only in literature or on television for most people, the better. They should be able to do so. Both the hon. Member for Islington, North and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that they would like that to happen to them. Perhaps a Select Committee trip may beckon. Who knows? If normal relations can be resumed with the Opposition, perhaps we can agree that Select Committee trips can be made. Antarctica would be a rather good destination so that Select Committees could see for themselves and perhaps suggest to my right hon. Friend how best the excellent measures in the Bill could be monitored and secured.

Perhaps a Standing Committee trip.

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. He has suggested that the Standing Committee which will consider the Bill should go to Antarctica so that it can conduct its affairs at first hand. I rarely volunteer to serve on Standing Committees. I long ago learned that if one speaks on Second Reading one perhaps expects to serve on the Committee. My right hon. Friend enforces the view that a visit to Antarctica would be the ideal way for the Standing Committee to gain first-hand experience on this important matter.

I return to the issue of tourism. I hope that when the Government consider the implementation of the Bill they will keep in view the voluntary organisation of tour operators that has come together to regulate tourism to Antarctica. It may work or it may not. Tour operators who are not a party to the voluntary arrangements can easily get round them if they suddenly decide that there is an opportunity to exploit. I hope that there will be constant monitoring of the rules and regulations that the voluntary organisation applies. It is important that we get it right. I do not suggest that tourists take with them a stick measuring five metres so that they always know whether they are five metres or more from a penguin that they happen to come across, but I am concerned about the conditions under which tourism is conducted.

For example, the type of vessels used must be appropriate. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North. He is right that thin-hulled vessels sailing in those waters are a menace. We must ensure that there is no likelihood of increasing tourism being brought to Antarctica at the expense of an increasing risk of pollution and damage. Tourism also poses a risk to those working on scientific experiments in Antarctica. If a difficulty arises and people need to be rescued, those carrying on scientific work in the area are obliged to come to the rescue. It is a waste of their resources and energy and we should not ask them to bear that risk.

In support of that point, does my hon. Friend agree that so often it is the sheer volume of tourism that damages the environment? Although relatively few tourists may go to Antarctica, the likelihood is that they will concentrate in particular areas and, therefore, the damage could be great.

My hon. Friend is right. Although the statistic may not be 100 per cent. accurate, I think that I am correct in saying that only 2 per cent. of the Antarctic land mass is ever free from ice. The scientists congregate in those areas and they are also the dropping-off point for tourists, which is why there are waste disposal difficulties.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) that it is important that the context within which tourism can take place should be established very early on. Antarctica must not suddenly become fashionable in the way that fashions for other resorts come and go. It must not suddenly become the done thing to up sticks and go to Antarctica. While one cannot deny anyone's right of access to one of the most fascinating parts of the world, any regulatory mechanisms must take great care to consider the arrangements made for tourists when they get there and their numbers. My hon. Friend is right—pressure of numbers is the real problem.

Mineral exploitation is also important and the Bill is clearly designed to deal with it in the firmest possible way. I welcome the fact that we have moved on from the stage where the legislative structure for the Antarctic could have permitted mineral exploitation. Now it does not. Enforcing the protocol in legislation here will be an important step towards ensuring that Antarctica is a no-go area for such exploitation.

I am not so sure that mineral exploitation was a very great risk. Those wishing to extract minerals—for example, hydrocarbons in the shape of oil or whatever—would face almost insuperable problems. It is not easy to extract minerals from a sub-continent where the ice sheet is 5 km deep in some places. It has not been possible to get ice cores for examination from any deeper than 2.5 km, so there is a technical problem and I am not certain that massive exploitation of minerals was ever a likely or feasible proposition in our lifetimes. However, it is good that we have decided to ratify a protocol which will stop it entirely, as it helps to press the case for protecting the Antarctic environment in this country and elsewhere and I welcome that.

I hope that once the Bill reaches the statute book, which I trust it will do in good order and in good time, the Government will make every effort to ensure that other countries which have signed the protocol but not yet enshrined it in their legislation will do so as that is important. I hope that our Government will send out the message that, after a short delay, we have enacted the protocol and it is time for others to act as well.

I hope that we shall continue our commitment to scientific research in Antarctica and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will deal with that in his speech. The costs of scientific experimentation can be reduced in many ways. Two stations in Antarctica, which were previously manned, are now automatic. Such investment, which ensures that costs are trimmed wherever possible but guarantees continuing experimentation, is an important way to ensure that money is well spent. It would be a great shame if we withdrew our scientific efforts in an area where we have always had the greatest interest and been able to take a clear lead. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to assure the House that our scientific efforts in Antarctica will continue.

I must reinforce something that the hon. Member for Islington, North said about wildlife. He was right to cite the problem of commercial exploitation under the guise of scientific experimentation. What has happened in the whaling industry is a disgrace. Some countries have clearly ignored the undertakings that they gave and have gone in for commercial exploitation on a grand scale, under the thin veil of scientific experimentation. There are lessons to be learnt from that—we must ensure that once the protocol is implemented nothing similar can happen and that we create an exploitation-free zone.

One example where we must be on our guard is in dealing with the seal population, which requires culling from time to time. Experiments with culling and its effects on seals and on the balance within the mammal population have taken place in many nations, not merely in Antarctica. I am concerned that there should be no commercial exploitation of such culling. There is one way to guarantee that: when a scientific decision has been taken that scientific experiments or culling exercises are required because it is in the interests of the mammal population, there should be no commercial exploitation of that decision. Otherwise, I fear that scientific experiments will be the crutch on which commercial exploitation can rest. We have seen that happen before and are forewarned, so it is important that when we implement the treaty and the protocol we remain forewarned and make every effort to ensure that nothing of that kind can happen again.

Antarctica is one of the places from which we can observe our future. In many ways it is vital to the way in which we manage the global ecosphere. We can have summits in Rio, but it is what we are able to observe in places such as Antarctica that will eventually tell us whether our policies are successful.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has done an excellent job in introducing the Bill, which has been well drafted and matches the protocol in just about every particular, and he has explained that those elements of the Bill that do not entirely reflect the protocol will be set out in permits granted once it is enacted. It is an excellent effort.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has a great interest in wildlife, not only in Antarctica but also in this place. He has been the author of three pieces of private Members' legislation and a report designed to protect parliamentary wildlife as effectively as the Bill and the treaty will protect the wildlife of Antarctica. There is a better prospect, however, of the protocol being enforced in Antarctica than of his measure to protect parliamentary wildlife coming to fruition. That is a great pity. The benefits of this legislation for the penguin population are one thing. The benefits of my right hon. Friend's other report are greatly needed for the wildlife in this House and I trust that not only the Bill will be enacted but that he will be successful in his other efforts.

The Labour party welcomes the Bill and wants it to proceed as smoothly as possible through its parliamentary stages. The all-party support that it has received is clearly shown in the list of sponsors, which includes the shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as other prominent Members of the House. I also note that the Bill received strong approval from the Liberal Democrat party in the speech by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on his success in winning a high place in the ballot and on his choice of subject, the protection of Antarctica. Since I am sure that he is confident of the Bill becoming law in due course, I am sure that it will be part of his parliamentary record on which he will look back with considerable pride in the future.

As I have said, the Labour party welcomes the Bill. The fact that the Government want the Bill to be enacted is a matter of satisfaction to the Opposition, because we believe that it represents a vindication of our long-held views about the need to ensure the highest degree of environmental protection for Antarctica.

Despite the achievement of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in introducing the Bill, I. too, regret that it had to be introduced through the private Member's procedure. Many of us believe that the Government should have taken the opportunity to introduce the Bill themselves at the earliest opportunity. Many people had expected and hoped for the Bill's inclusion in the Government's programme, because the Madrid protocol has been awaiting ratification since October 1991. One wonders what would have happened if the right hon. Gentleman had not had the wisdom to sponsor the Bill when he won a place in the ballot. I hope that we would not have had to wait much longer before a similar Bill was introduced. Now that the Bill has been introduced, the Government must give it their full support quickly so that it reaches the statute book soon.

The Bill has been introduced in an atmosphere of consensus and all-party agreement, which I welcome. Many of us, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will remember that the last time that a Bill concerning Antarctica was discussed, it was much more controversial. The Antarctic Minerals Bill was debated forcefully by both parties some three years ago. Throughout its proceedings Labour Members consistently argued that it was inappropriate. They argued that, at best, it would be impossible to implement because other signatory countries to the Antarctic treaty would veto it and, worse, that it could be seen as giving encouragement to commercial forces interested in exploitation of the Antarctic. That Bill showed up the fact that the Government's green credentials were not nearly as good as they should have been.

I put it on the record that throughout the proceedings on that Bill, the Labour party spoke strongly in favour of Antarctica being given permanent protected environmental status as a world wilderness park. We continue to hold that view and it is a goal that we would advance in government.

Having read the debates on the Antarctic Minerals Bill in the House and in Committee, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who took part in those debates for their foresight and commitment to the environment and to Antarctica. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, who spoke knowledgeably and with great feeling this morning, was a member of that Committee as were my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I am sure that they are all pleased that today's Bill is being considered. They will be greatly relieved that it will make it impossible for mineral exploitation and mineral resource activities in particular to take place.

In 1989–90, the Government seemed to view with some concern the activities of the Governments of Australia and of France. Our Government saw them as trouble makers, who broke the consensus on mineral exploitation and testing. I believe that those Governments were motivated by the highest environmental concerns and I am glad that, in the end, it is their view that has prevailed.

Throughout all the debates on Antarctica, what has been of great encouragement to us all has been the concern that our constituents have shown for the continent and the protection of its environment. It has been heartening to realise the depth of the environmental commitment of many of our constituents. Like many other hon. Members, I was lobbied by constituents, written to and presented with petitions about Antarctica. The importance of its environmental protection is obviously something about which people feel strongly. There was widespread recognition of the unique importance of the Antarctic environment, the research carried on there and of the knowledge about world environmental problems that that research is capable of bringing to light.

Although concern about the environment expressed by groups and interested constituents is important in this country, it is also important in other countries. For example, the work of the Cousteau Foundation in France was important in getting the French Government to adopt a certain attitude about three years ago.

I echo the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) in paying tribute to the research work carried out by the British Antarctic Survey. I know how important that work is. Hon. Members have already mentioned, understandably, the relationship between that research and knowledge about the ozone layer and the hole in it which was discovered over Antarctica. I wish that some of that research had been better funded. The hon. Member for Winchester said that two of the five stations would be unmanned from 1995 to 1996. The excellent paper produced for Members by the House of Commons Library notes:

"The bases are closing because the BAS cannot afford the necessary £5 million to make each conform to Health and Safety standards."

I hope that that is not some false economy, which we will regret in the long term. Perhaps the Minister could address that when he replies to the many excellent points that have been made by hon. Members.

We have the ice patrol vessel and the research vessel in Antarctica. If I may inject a personal note, I was delighted to be present when the research vessel, James Clark Ross, was launched on Tyneside by the Swan Hunter shipyard. That ship is an interesting example of how modern-day shipbuilding is linked with high technology. In many ways it is sad that Swan Hunter still seems in danger of being closed. I hope that the skills of the managers and the work force at that yard can be used in the construction of similar high-quality vessels in the future. I know that that sentiment is strongly felt on Tyneside, but it is equally important to the nation.

Although I welcome the Bill, I have a number of questions to ask the Minister, to which I hope he will be able to respond. I recognise, however, that there will be an opportunity to consider many of the important issues that have been raised by hon. Members when the Bill is considered in Committee.

The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, SCAR, was mentioned in the Library research paper. Some concern has been expressed about the amount of funding that is necessary to keep that organisation going and in good health. The brief states that SCAR has a budget of only £250,000 a year, which, according to the director of the British Antarctic Survey, is peanuts. Perhaps the Minister can say how the funding of SCAR will be handled in the future. What priority will be given to its valuable work? The Opposition believe that if that organisation is to exist, it should be allowed to have the funds to carry out properly the functions that it considers to be important.

The treaty provides for confidence-building procedures, including exchanges of information about Antarctic activities and on-site inspections. How will that work out in practice and what thoughts does the Department have on that matter?

Several hon. Members have said that they want other countries to ratify the protocol as quickly as possible. They will be interested to learn from the Government what progress has been made towards ratification. All countries responsible need to ratify the protocol for it to be truly effective. We hope that our deliberations are being mirrored by similar proceedings in the other countries involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North referred to the abandoned UK bases in Antarctica. The Foreign Office said that the British Antarctic Survey had recently reviewed all accessible abandoned UK bases in Antarctica with the aim of removing them, transforming them into refuges, or designating them as historic monuments. Will the Minister update that information and say exactly what is happening in that respect?

There seems to have been some tension within the United Nations between Antarctic treaty states and states that are not party to the treaty but are concerned about the future of Antarctica. Recent accounts in the press say that the tension has diminished in recent times and I hope that that is so. I also hope that the protocol has been a factor in reducing the difficulties. It would be useful to have an update on the position and to know how non-treaty states view the latest developments of the protocol.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned fisheries and the need for conservation measures. It would be useful to have an update of information on that. There is worldwide concern about the reduction of fish stocks in the Antarctic region, including the worrying reduction in the number of krill, and it would be good to know that some of the measures that have been taken are having an effect in renewing those badly depleted fish stocks.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the granting of permits to enter specially protected areas. Again, we would welcome any information which the Minister could give us on the procedures for issuing and refusing permits.

The UK supports the concept of a Southern ocean whale sanctuary, which is of interest to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. It would be helpful if the Minister would respond on that matter, too.

Environmental pollution still causes great concern. The paper produced by the Library says that

"raw sewage is still discharged into McMurdo Sound, and it is alleged that the harbour there is still polluted with oil."

What is the current position and what further measures are envisaged to tackle the problem?

The comments by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about the huskies will have interested many hon. Members. I am glad that a solution has been found and that the remote possibility that the dogs are harmful to the environment has been dealt with.

I understand that there is now agreement in principle on the establishment of a secretariat for the treaty organisation, although details such as its location have not yet been decided. If we are to ensure that the worthwhile goals of the treaty and protocol are adhered to in future, the problems must be dealt with by a well-established secretariat that can work effectively for the long-term benefits of Antarctica.

Those were my most important questions, but I hope that the Minister will also comment on the likely progress of the Bill's Committee stage and say how he thinks some of the issues will be dealt with in detail. Expert advice and opinion are important. If, at some stage, Committee members can be given such expert advice and opinion and can meet some of the people who will be involved in implementing the treaty and protocol, it would be welcomed by hon Members on both sides.

The Antarctic treaty has been described in a Foreign Office publication on the subject as a "trailblazer" in international law. Let us hope that the trailblazing procedure in Antarctica will spur on other forms of international environmental co-operation and ensure that the international environment on which we all depend is safeguarded in the long term. We hope that the goals agreed at Rio will start to be effectively implemented and that the GATT agreement, which we all welcome, will prove to be sensitive to environmental concerns. Many people have wanted a "greening" of GATT.

Although it is situated at the other end of the earth, the Antarctic's environmental health affects us all. It is proof positive that we are all one world, environmentally speaking. I therefore hope that the passage of the Bill, along with similar and speedy ratification processes in all the other countries involved, will ensure that the Antarctic environment is protected in perpetuity.

I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is waiting to introduce the important Water (Domestic Disconnections) Bill. There were moments in the speech by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) when I wondered whether she was trying to talk it out. That would be extremely unfair of her.

I am very anxious that we should give ample time for discussion of that Bill, so I am imposing on myself a self-denying ordinance that I shall sit down at near enough 12.55 pm. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before we go on to the extremely important Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Salford, East.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on his good fortune in the ballot, on choosing this subject and on introducing the Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for taking on the burden of this complicated legislation. He will have to sustain much of the burden in Committee, to which we all look forward. I say in reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East that there will, indeed, be a Committee stage, and that I very much look forward to her presence then.

We are also fortunate in that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is a former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who therefore brings to the subject a lot of specialist knowledge. Incidentally, I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone) said in support of my right hon. Friend's other proposal, which is designed to ensure that the habitat of creatures rather closer to home is not disturbed and polluted beyond a particular hour at night. All of us rally behind that proposal and look forward to its early implementation.

Britain unquestionably has special responsibilities in the Antarctic, not the least of those being the British Antarctic Territory, our support, as a consultative party, for the Antarctic treaty system, and our commitment to the long-term protection of the Antarctic environment. For all those reasons, and for the reasons mentioned by many other hon. Members, I commend the Bill to the House.

The protocol to the treaty, with which the Bill is mostly concerned, cannot enter into force until it has been ratified by all 26 Antarctic treaty consultative parties. As far as we know, six states have so far ratified: Argentina, Spain, France, Norway, Peru and Ecuador. We understand that most consultative parties intend to ratify by the end of 1994 or by early 1995.

We cannot ratify the protocol until legislation—the Bill—has been enacted. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), the hon. Member for Gateshead, Fast and others have asked whether we shall press other states to ratify, especially at the Kyoto meeting. The answer is yes. It is important that all states ratify as soon as may be.

The hon. Member for Gateshead, East mentioned the James Clark Ross. When I was Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, I visited the James Clark Ross on two occasions, and I was extremely impressed by the way in which the ship had been built. It was built extremely expeditiously, and it was fitted out to the highest possible standards. I greatly valued my two visits to the yard.

The House will know about a resolution adopted by the general assembly of the World Conservation Union which was held in Buenos Aires last month. The resolution called for the early passage into relevant law of the protocol, and that is what we seek to do today. The Bill will do the very things that the general assembly urges us to do.

We hope that the Bill will be successful, and thus enable us to ratify the protocol by the end of the year. It would be a great misfortune if it fell. It would set back our ratification timetable to 1996 or thereabouts, it would draw adverse criticism from other signatories, and it would be a very bad signal. I am pleased that there has been universal support in the Chamber for what we are about.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and others have referred to the two elements of Antarctic work in which the United Kingdom is especially active: Antarctic politics, in which we have consistently taken a leading role, and Antarctic science, in which we maintain a pre-eminent position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester asked me to give some reassurance about our continuing commitment to that scientific work. I can give that commitment. The same question was asked by the hon. Members for Gateshead, East and for Islington, North. The only positive statement in the Antarctic treaty is that on the need for freedom for scientific investigation and co-operation between states to achieve that end. Article II of the protocol flags up the crucial position of science in its designation of Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. That embodies environmental protection and science as the critical currencies of Antarctica.

The Government's policy has consistently been that the United Kingdom's physical presence in the British Antarctic Territory should primarily be provided by first-class science programmes. We have a long tradition of scientific endeavour in Antarctica. Our science presence in Antarctica, which is, I think, the envy of much of the international scientific community, is provided by the British Antarctic Survey, one of the research institutes of the Natural Environment Research Council.

We must ask why we are committed to such high-profile scientific research in the region. The predominant thrust of the British Antarctic Survey is to concentrate research efforts on those elements of science that can be carried out only in the Antarctic and that provide vital information on global processes. The near-pristine conditions of Antarctica provide a yardstick against which to monitor a number of key global parameters.

That issue has been mentioned by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Islington, North and my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester and for Poole (Mr. Ward). The main work includes atmospheric pollution, ozone depletion, climatic change and sea level rises. Actions in one part of the world affect us all throughout the world. Taken together, our actions produce a cumulative global effect.

Antarctica provides the ideal template for scientific investigations into processes that affect us all; we should not underestimate that effect, even though it may be long-term. The influence of Antarctica is considerable. It acts as the major heat sink of the planet. Its surrounding air masses and oceans determine much of what happens in the southern hemisphere, the weather patterns, fisheries, land productivity and agriculture. Its ice cap, which is 14 million sq km in extent and, on average, 2.2 km thick, contains about 90 per cent. of the world's ice and 70 per cent. of its fresh water.

Perhaps one of the most significant scientific discoveries this century was that made in 1985 by British Antarctic Survey atmospheric scientists working at the Halley research station, when they detected the so-called ozone hole over Antarctica. That has led to considerable concern and international conventions that govern the use of propellants for aerosols, and refrigerants for fridges and freezers.

I shall seek to answer the specific questions asked by hon. Members, but I first want to mention the implementation of the protocol. I think that we can all be agreed that, if the Antarctic is to retain its critical importance as a base from which science can be conducted, it must be retained in its relatively pristine condition. There are two ways of doing that, and they are harmonious one with the other.

First, knowing that Antarctica, remote as it is from centres of industry and population, is affected by worldwide activities, we must, through other relevant international agreements, reduce atmospheric and sea-borne pollution. That means that we must support instruments such as the Montreal protocol, the climate change convention and the Basel convention.

Secondly, we must ensure that any localised impact on Antarctica is minimised, the reason being that we must not sully the very environment that we wish to study. In October 1991, when the protocol was adopted, the Antarctic treaty parties, appreciating that formal entry into force would clearly take some time, agreed that they would do their best to comply informally with the provisions of the protocol ahead of its entry into force.

That has been done by those within the United Kingdom. The main UK operators in Antarctica have implemented the practicalities of the protocol with considerable alacrity. Both the British Antarctic Survey and the Royal Navy are complying fully, albeit informally, with all elements of the protocol. The BAS rapidly introduced an action programme to implement the protocol, and is now one of the leaders in the field.

I fear that, because of the pressures of time and my desire that the right hon. Member for Salford, East should have an opportunity of moving his Bill, I do not have the opportunity to go into all the informal steps that we have taken.

The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and others raised the question of abandoned stations within Antarctica. I should like to deal with that matter specifically. We must ask ourselves what is to be done with the numerous abandoned UK stations up and down the Antarctic peninsula. Annex III to the protocol requires that former work places in Antarctica be cleaned up or removed unless to do so would have more impact on the environment than leaving them in situ.

As I mentioned before, our permanent presence in Antarctica goes back a long time. Since 1943, some 20 stations have outgrown their useful life, scientifically or logistically, or have simply been destroyed by the climatic conditions that exist there. We are, for example, now occupying the fifth station to be built at Halley bay. The four predecessors to the current station, which was finished only in 1992, have in turn been crushed by the pressure of the Brunt ice shelf, and have been abandoned.

We have conducted a comprehensive survey of all the accessible UK abandoned stations. Our options are to clean them up, remove the structures, convert them into some form of emergency refuge or designate them formally as historic sites and monuments under the environmental protocol. Any premature or over-zealous clean-up of the huts would, I suspect, be criticised in years to come, there being a great deal of legitimate historical interest in the Antarctic.

Therefore, we must ensure that any assessment of the future of those stations is done with considerable sensitivity. I can assure the House that, when determining their future, we will reflect carefully, taking account of the considerations, for example, that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.

Reference has been made, on both sides of the House, to the environmental impact assessments. The environ-mental impact assessment is one element of the protocol on which the BAS moved ahead some time ago. As hon. Members will know, it is a well-recognised procedure in modern developmental planning. The protocol requires that activities in Antarctica, whether governmental or non-governmental, touristic or scientific in nature, undergo assessment for environmental impact before they proceed. Three levels of assessment are set out in the protocol. The detail of assessment that has to be carried out depends on the predicted impact of the activity in question.

Draft guidelines have been prepared by the Government to deal with the EIAs in Antarctica and under the Bill, and the question how those assessments will be carried out in future would be dealt with as conditions in any permit for a British expedition or station in Antarctica.

That takes me to the question of permits. Broadly speaking, the permit regime has been welcomed on both sides of the House. That regime will be the basic means of implementing the environmental protection measures required by the protocol.

The Bill sets out a number of permit provisions. It might be useful if I commented on them—briefly, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has already explained their impact very clearly. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 deal respectively with British expeditions to Antarctica, British stations in Antarctica and British ships or aircraft going to Antarctica.

In each case, a permit will be needed from the Secretary of State, who in most cases—I think, in all cases—will be my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Such a permit will have to be issued before any of the relevant activities can proceed; to act otherwise would be to commit an offence under the Bill.

Clause 13 provides that the Secretary of State may attach conditions to a permit. We are anxious not to set up an overly cumbersome bureaucracy, requiring expeditions that intend to set up or extend stations and, possibly, to employ both aircraft and ships to obtain several permits covering every facet of their work. I hope that, in such circumstances—which are likely to arise in the complex logistic and scientific operations of the BAS—a single overriding, over-arching permit covering all elements of clauses 3, 4 and 5 will suffice.

A specific permit will be required for scientific research into Antarctic minerals. We need to strike a proper balance between ensuring that the mineral resources ban created by article 7 of the protocol is made effective, and not constraining the valuable scientific research into earth sciences in Antarctica—geology and geophysics.

I understand what the Minister is saying about the permits, but I am concerned about two matters. First, what will be the procedure if the Foreign Secretary—presumably—refuses a permit to an organisation that may well be doing something that would embarrass people who are contravening the treaty? In the past, Greenpeace has embarrassed the United States and France by exposing their activities in rubbish disposal. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to grant recognised non-governmental organisation status to certain organisations? That has been done elsewhere.

Secondly, the permits do not cover ships or aircraft travelling through the Antarctic airspace or seas whose destination is not in Antarctica. I envisage a problem: tourist operators could use that loophole to undertake operations there without stopping or landing. What would happen in the case of an emergency such as the plane crash that killed New Zealand tourists?

I do not wish to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but those are essentially Committee points; they are points of some substance. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will interest himself in the Committee stage. I shall be happy to consider any proposals that he may advance then, and in the meantime I shall reflect on whether we could or should do anything to meet his concerns.

This is, in a sense, only a partial answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but legal difficulties are involved in distinguishing between academic geological science and commercial mineral exploration. As has often been said, the difference lies more in the intent of those carrying out the work than in the operation itself. We must be able to ensure that any geophysical or geological work is being carried out for bona fide scientific purposes and scientific gain.

A number of hon. Members have raised the question of wildlife. The taking of wildlife and entry into protected areas will require specific permits.

As to whaling, the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will prevent United Kingdom nationals from killing or disturbing whales or seals in Antarctica. The international regulation of whales and whaling is the responsibility of the International Whaling Commission, not the Antarctic treaty parties; but, to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, the IWC is today negotiating a Southern ocean whale sanctuary. The United Kingdom supports that concept, which would provide total protection for all of the great whales in the Antarctic and the sub-Antarctic.

Fishing was mentioned by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The hon. Gentleman informed me that he had to go to his constituency, and we all understand the reasons that took him away from this place.

His constituency is nearly in the Arctic.

The hon. Member is right.

To reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, fish and fishing are dealt with by the convention on the conservation of antarctic marine living resources 1980, not by the protocol, and we are an active party to that convention. Commercial fisheries in Antarctica are regulated by open or closed seasons and also restrictions on allowable catches. We will continue to press for regulations to be imposed on fisheries to be strengthened to ensure proper compliance and conservation.

Reference has been made to the fact that there are powers to delegate the Secretary of State's powers to others—for example, the administrator of the British Antarctic Territory or the director of the British Antarctic Survey. The power to delegate is discretionary, but, to answer an argument by the hon. Member for Islington, North, to forestall potential accusations that any delegated permitting authority could be construed as acting as judge and jury, I suspect that it will be prudent not to delegate to BAS officials the power to grant permits for those activities which might significantly damage or destroy habitats or plant communities. Transparency is important: the point has been well made in the House.

Tourism has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. There has been a substantial increase in the volume of tourism to Antarctica. I am glad that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants to pay a visit, and I would also like to do so. The hon. Member for Islington, North was less certain whether he wanted to be a tourist.

I was certain.

He was certain: I am so sorry.

I was going there.

He could not go. I remember now: he wanted to oppose the action in the Gulf. He did not get much sympathy from the House, but I am sorry that it cost him his journey. Perhaps I had better stop this private chat with the hon. Gentleman.

In any event, we are all agreed that tourism is increasing, and is likely to continue to do so. It is important to emphasise that that is subject to the controls under the protocol and under the Bill. It has as much bearing on tourist expeditions to Antarctica as on their scientific counterparts and, although there has been reference to a mandatory annex specifically tailored to tourism, that has aroused considerable hostility.

We feel that we might be able to address any of the further problems better by a series of codes of guidance and by self-regulation, although we also think that we could introduce other changes—for example, the introduction of on-board observer schemes.

There was interesting discussion about jurisdiction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to clause 21, and there has been reference to clause 24. The object of those provisions is to ensure that there is a criminal jurisdiction in respect of acts that might take place in areas that are not claimed territory.

The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made an ingenious point, as I would expect of him. He asked which jurisdiction would apply in the event of there being a difference between Scottish law and the law of England and Wales. The answer is that the relevant law is that of the country in which the trial takes place—that of Scotland or of England and Wales, as might be material.

I imposed on myself the self-denying ordinance that I would sit down at 12.55 pm in order to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Havant to raise the matters that I know he has in mind, which are of considerable importance. In order to set a good example to other hon. Members, I intend to comply with my self-denying ordinance. In doing so, I commend the Bill to the House.

I begin by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for his characteristic courtesy in curtailing his speech so as to give me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have enjoyed listening to several contributions and I hope to make a modest contribution of my own. I feel slightly embarrassed, however, that in doing so I have shortened the authoritative comments of the Minister.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on introducing the Bill. Clearly, all hon. Members agree that it is important that Britain moves as rapidly as possible to implement the 1991 protocol to the Antarctic treaty.

The significance of the Antarctic to British research and British history cannot be underestimated. We should remember that it was Captain Cook who discovered the Antarctic and we have produced some very distinguished contributors to its history, such as Scott and Shackleton. Most recently, Mr. Joe Farman, a British scientist, discovered the hole in the ozone layer from one of our research stations in British Antarctic territory.

That is a revealing episode because it reveals the difference between British and American science and highlights some of the traditional strengths of British science. The Americans had sophisticated systems in place to monitor the size of the ozone layer. Their systems were computerised; ours were not. The Americans had written into their computer programmes an error elimination element which meant that, if the readings started diverging too much, they were discounted. As the hole in the ozone layer was growing so rapidly, the automatic correction procedures in the American computerised monitoring system eliminated the readings showing that the ozone hole was growing, so the hole was not caught by the American researchers. It was the British researcher, using tried and tested techniques and inspecting his data manually, who discovered the hole, rather than the much more expensive, highly computerised American systems. That reminds us of one of the long-term strengths of British scientific inquiry.

I was sorry to discover that the Faraday and Signy bases, at one of which the discovery of the hole in the ozone layer was made, will be unmanned in future because it would cost £5 million to implement health and safety regulations. I hope that it is not a case of absurd over-regulation standing in the way of legitimate scientific inquiry. Of course, we need the highest environmental standards in Antarctica, but, as far as I know, there has never been a serious physical danger or threat—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject, is it in order for an hon. Member to intervene who was not present to hear the opening speech?

Yes, it is in order. If it were not, the hon. Gentleman would not have been allowed to intervene.

May I point out that I have been in the Chamber to hear the bulk of the debate and, indeed, have enjoyed listening to several contributions from hon. Members of all parties.

I was saying that it is a great pity if the burden of health and safety regulations has led to the closure of the Faraday and Signy sites or, at least, to the change from their being manned to being unmanned stations.

I hope that the regulations that will be imposed are rational ones that can be justified by normal cost-benefit analysis.

Several hon. Members have referred to the threats to the environment of the Antarctic which the Bill is designed to address. We have heard much about tourism. Over the past year, there have been some extraordinary examples in the British press of attempts by tour operators to have their cake and eat it. I particularly enjoyed a striking article in The Guardian on 19 June 1993, which was a classic example of politically correct advertising for tourism. The article largely comprised anxieties about the effects of tourism on the Antarctic environment and ended with a paragraph giving details of all the cruises, tour operators, addresses, prices and telephone numbers. That was certainly an example of an attempt to look both ways. I welcome the regulations that will be imposed by the Bill to try to limit the environmental damage that tourism can do.

It is not only tourists who can damage the environment; scientists can also damage the environment. The 4,000 scientists who go to the Antarctic every year can do enormous damage to the environment. I hope that they will keep a beady eye on what constitutes scientific inquiry. As science is given such extraordinary free rein in Antarctica, there are obvious temptations for any attempt to visit Antarctica for whatever purpose to be dressed up as science. The borderline between tourism and scientific activity is by no means obvious. Indeed, one can well imagine in the future the final irony of tourism being marketed on the basis that people can go to Antarctica to inspect the damage done to the environment by previous tourist visits. I hope that we will ensure that the scientific activity that will be rightly permitted under the Bill will be genuine and properly regulated and monitored.

My final comments on the Bill relate to the innovations in the legal framework with which Antarctica is to be protected. Antarctica is an extraordinary place not only in environmental terms but in terms of the law of international relations. It is not clear who owns it. Most of the progress in establishing a legal framework for Antarctica has been made by different countries which accept, as a precondition for reaching any agreement, that their conflicting claims for sovereignty must be set aside for the purposes of reaching international agreements. As a free marketeer, I was struck by the fact that in the Bill we are trying to protect an environment without the normal prerogatives of property rights and of people trying to protect the purity of their property. That is how the environment can normally be best protected and looked after.

I welcome the flexibility provided under article 9 of the protocol, which will enable future changes to the environmental regime for Antarctica to be introduced more speedily and easily than has been possible in the past. It would be a great pity if, in the future, we needed to reach wide-ranging international agreement before any serious improvements in the protection of the Antarctic environment was possible. Indeed, as more and more countries have an interest in Antarctica, it is important that we do not become bogged down in ever more cumbersome international negotiations before any serious protection can be agreed. I think therefore that article 9 of the protocol, which will introduce further improvements to the environmental regime for British Antarctica, is of great importance and I welcome the measure.

Another innovative aspect of the measure is the extension of British criminal law outside the United Kingdom. This is a fascinating example of an attempt to ensure that people on the other side of the world find that they cannot escape the long arm of British justice. I commend my right hon. Friend for introducing a Bill which involves such an innovative attempt to ensure proper legal protection for the Antarctic environment.

I conclude by giving the Bill a warm welcome and by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his initiative in ensuring that Britain—which has a long history of ratifying Antarctic treaties promptly and fully—can maintain that tradition by moving to ratify the latest environmental protocol.

With the leave of the House, I will say a few words on this morning's full and fascinating debate. I am grateful to every single one of my colleagues who have spoken for their flattering remarks, both about my so-called wisdom in picking the Bill and about the quality of the Bill itself. I very much appreciate them.

As I began by saying, the debate has demonstrated that, however far away Antarctica is, it has a great fascination for the House. However inhospitable and unattractive it may be physically, it is extraordinary how many colleagues from all parties have expressed a desire to go there.

I refer to three issues that have been raised in the debate. First, the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) referred to the control of fisheries.

Examination of the powers that are contained in the convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources took me back forcefully to my previous incarnation as a Fisheries Minister, and as president of the Council of Fishery Ministers in Brussels. I remember talking about total allowable catches, prohibitions on designated species, close seasons and grounds, net mesh regulations and data reporting schemes. I know that they have been effective within the European Union over the years and I was pleased that the CCAMLR has jurisdiction over commercial fishing in all the southern nations, including places such as South Georgia and South Sandwich, as well as the area south of 60 deg. which is covered by the Bill.

I am pleased that the regime has already proved to be effective. I understand that, during the season, one Chilean fishing vessel has been fined and a Russian vessel is in the process of being prosecuted. That shows that the convention has some teeth.

Secondly, I was struck by the number of hon. Members who referred to the problem of having too many tourists. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward), for Winchester (Mr. Malone) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts). My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), whom I glad to see in his place, intervened to talk about the damage that tourists can do. He and I have an interest in the Lake District, which is in my constituency, and we know very well the damage that tourists can do to the very things that they go to look at. It is much the same with regard to Antarctica and it is essential that tourism is properly controlled so that tourists do not again destroy what they are meant to look at.

Finally, the hon. Member for Islington, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester expressed the desire that clause 35, which deals with implementation, would be dealt with quickly when the Bill gets on the statute book. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has been good enough to come to the House and respond to the debate in such an authoritative way. I hope that the Government will implement the Bill as soon as possible after it goes on to the statute book.

I could say a great deal more, but my old friend the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is bursting to make his speech about water disconnections. So I shall not say any more about my Bill except that I am grateful for everything that has been said and I hope that it will be given an unopposed Second Reading.

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

I begin by thanking the sponsors of my Bill, which has all-party support. I also thank the many outside organisations which support it, including the National Consumer Council, the British Medical Association, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Save the Children and Age Concern. That is a substantial list of organisations which support the principle behind the Bill.

The Bill seeks to ban the disconnection of water supplies to occupied residential homes for reason of non-payment of charges. The Bill relates to England and Wales only because the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is different. There is no power to disconnect water in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government have not taken the opportunity in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill to give the new Scottish water authorities such power.

My Bill will allow water companies to continue to disconnect business and empty premises. It will leave them free to use all the methods of debt collection that non-utility companies use to collect their debts. The Bill also seeks to ensure that pre-payment devices are installed only with the customer's consent.

I shall deal first with the need to ban domestic disconnections for non-payment of charges. The practice of water disconnection is inhuman and unacceptable in a civilised society. I believe that if disconnections continue, they will contribute to an increase in hygiene-related diseases such as dysentery. I always thought that we had banished such diseases from Britain for good.

The average bill across all 10 water and sewerage companies rose by 50 per cent. between April 1989 and April 1993. Inflation rose by 23 per cent. over the same period. So on average water bills have risen by significantly more than double the rate of inflation since privatisation. Unfortunately, in the five years since privatisation disconnections have also risen. On average, the rate of disconnections has tripled. In 1991–92 the number of disconnections reached more than 21,000. Last year there was a slight reduction, but figures were still unacceptably high: 18,636 households were disconnected. Everyone accepts that water bills will continue to rise, so the number of disconnections would also rise in the future.

I have been disappointed with the response to the Bill from the Ofwat customer committees. Nevertheless, the chairman of Ofwat's eastern customer service committee, who is not a supporter of the Bill, makes the point that his committee is concerned about

"the rising level of disconnection which we may expect following the issue of new water bills in the months of March and April 1994. "

That quotation is from a letter to the chairman of the National Consumer Council on 8 February.

Even the Bill's opponents admit that there is a strong likelihood that the pressure of rising bills will increase disconnections. Faced with tax increases and the fuel tax that will come into effect in the autumn, it would be difficult to contradict that view. The recent fall in the number of disconnections was achieved only by a huge effort and a campaign by the organisations representing vulnerable groups. By using media coverage, they shamed water companies into reducing the number of disconnections. My worry is that we cannot rely on such public pressure indefinitely. If the spotlight leaves the water companies, they may return to what they see as an easy option for debt recovery.

The water companies say that they disconnect only the "won't payers"—those who can afford to pay, but refuse to do so. I shall bring to the attention of the House some recent examples of people I know who have been disconnected: in Southampton a lady with seven children, one aged three who suffers from a heart condition; a family of five, in which the mother suffers from a medical condition which requires a constant supply of water and whose neighbours provided that water via a hose pipe; and a severely disabled elderly lady, whose neighbours brought her water in a variety of containers. In south Staffordshire, a single parent on unemployment benefit was threatened with disconnection for arrears of £60·73. When the local citizens advice bureau contacted the water company to say that there was a child in the house, the company said, "So what?—We'll still disconnect." A young mother with three children, aged two, five and eight, handed over £50—all her family credit for a week—when the company turned up to cut her water off. The water company got its money, but the family had nothing left for food for the following week. In mid-Kent, the water company refused to allow a family with two children under five and a baby on the way to repay £5 a week under an instalment plan and demanded the payment of more than £400 in full.

I do not call those people "won't payers", but "can't payers". Consumer and health groups are so concerned about the increase in disconnections and the way in which they indiscriminately affect both the weak and the strong that in growing numbers they are calling for a ban. The public health of the nation is at risk.

The most fundamental point is that water is not like any other commodity. It is essential and there is no substitute. If the electricity is cut off, people can use a Calor gas heater; if the gas supply is cut off, they can cook on a primus stove for a few days. It would be a hardship—there is no doubt about it—but it would be just about possible to find a substitute which would not necessarily endanger their health or anything else. If water supplies are cut off, there is no substitute. Water is unique because of its very nature and the health dangers that can result from its absence. The Government have recognised on other occasions that the absence of water poses special problems with which the law needs to deal. In the Environment Protection Act 1990, the Government ensured that a disconnected property had to be classed as a statutory nuisance, which local authorities had to do something about. In the Housing Act 1985, the Government gave local authorities the power to deem a disconnected house unfit for human habitation. Imagine how wasteful we would think it if a local authority had to make a family homeless because a water company had disconnected them.

The most worrying example of all is that under the Children Act 1989, children living in a household without running water are at risk of being taken into care, which is a very important point. Do we really think that it would be right for children living in a house that has been disconnected by a water company, which happens, to have to go through the trauma of being taken into care because of the risk to their health? Is that what the Government mean when, in the international year of the family, they talk about keeping the family together?

At this time of deregulation, the Government should remove the burden from local authority social services and environmental health departments by banning disconnections. The three main local authority organisations—the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils—support my Bill. Individual local councils of all political persuasions are voting in support of a ban on water disconnections.

There is more evidence to suggest that at the time of privatisation the Government recognised that there were some special problems with water disconnections. They gave the Director General of Ofwat, the water regulator, special powers to insist that a company did not get a licence to supply water unless it had a code of practice, approved by Ofwat, on debt and disconnections. Section 7·3 of the licence conditions states that a company cannot disconnect if the customer applies to the social services for help and it asks the company to delay disconnection. The Government, therefore, must have wanted to provide some safeguard for the vulnerable—the elderly, the very young and the disabled—who need protection.

Unfortunately, no one, either in the Government or in Ofwat, insists that the water companies inform their customers about the help that can be offered from social services. They only thing that the director general requires companies to do is to write to customers the following sentence:

"you may wish to contact the Social Services Department. They are unlikely to give you money, but they may be able to help in other ways."

I know that my constituents do not contact social services lightly. They have the pride and desire for independence about which the Government often talk approvingly, which means that they would be reluctant to go to social services unless, perhaps, it was spelt out that social services would be able to delay a disconnection. Because that help is not spelt out, the vast majority of people just suffer in silence and shame.

I have a most extreme example of someone who fell through the net and suffered in silence. He is a 50-year-old man living on his own, on invalidity benefit, with a serious hearing condition, mobility problems and a learning disability. By any definition he is a very vulnerable person. Last year, his neighbour complained to the environmental health department about the smell from the drains. That department found that that man's water had been disconnected for two and a half years. No one can convince me that he should be classified as a "won't payer" or that there was no risk to public health from his being without a water supply for two and a half years—clearly, both he and his neighbours were at risk.

Although the director general does not agree that his debt and disconnection guidelines are inadequate, he admits that he cannot get all the companies to follow them. In a press statement in November 1993 he said:

"There are still a few companies whose response … has been limited and does not match up to the guidelines."

North West Water, which supplies my own constituency, has decided without any prompting from Ofwat—the body supposed to represent consumers—that it will voluntarily give customers more information. It writes to the customer that if he or she is on income support, has children under five, has someone in the household on state pension, is a one-parent family or unemployed or has a kidney machine on the premises, those circumstances may influence the decision whether to disconnect. North West Water has reduced the number of disconnections, although I still believe that it should be reduced to zero.

While I applaud the initiatives of North West Water, all those half-measures are not enough. The safeguards built in at the time of privatisation have not worked and will not work. It is impossible to give companies the power to disconnect just the "won't pays". So long as the power to disconnect exists, thousands of "can't pays" will also be disconnected, and they will include the disabled, the elderly, the sick and the very young—all those who are most vulnerable.

On public health, the Government seem to be waiting for an epidemic of huge proportions before they accept that being unable to flush the toilet or wash one's hands will lead to the spread of disease. The British Medical Association, which should know how disease is spread, backs the Bill for precisely that reason. At my press conference, Dr. Taylor described the importance of hygiene. The Royal College of Physicians Public Health Faculty and other medical organisations, such as the Royal College of Midwives, also support the Bill. The Scottish medical officer, Dr. Robert Kendell, appears to disagree with the English medical officer, for he opposed the introduction of disconnections in Scotland because of the consequences of disease.

Although the Bill bans disconnections, it allows companies to continue to use all other means of debt collection. Companies should offer more flexible payment methods to pay off debts. It must be recognised that water bills have risen above the inflation rate since 1988 and that the water component of income support has not been increased by a comparable amount.

People on low incomes are more likely to be able to cope if they can pay bills and debts in many small instalments. I was amazed to find citizens advice bureaux and others still reporting that some companies refuse to offer instalments to customers, almost as though the companies prefer to cut people off.

The chairman of Ofwat South-West customer service committee wrote to the National Consumer Council on 29 October 1993 as follows:

"We have experienced difficulty in persuading South-West Water to make frequent payment options freely available."

The director-general of Ofwat also outlined that problem in his press release in November 1993.

Why can one company reduce the number of disconnections while another cannot? According to Ofwat figures, in the first six months of this financial year Wessex Water made no disconnections while neighbouring Southern Water made 882. That is a classic example of the difference between two adjacent water companies. The companies could pursue "won't pays" through the courts to get deductions from benefit, attachment of earnings orders and administration orders. If companies are worried about the need for sanctions, I should have thought that those were enough.

Last year, in the middle of a recession, the water companies made profits of £1·7 billion. They are therefore paying record dividends, whereas they should be more concerned about their customers than their shareholders.

The Bill ensures that pre-payment devices are installed only with the customer's consent because the Water Industry Act 1991 does not spell that out clearly enough. Pre-payment devices have caused a worrying increase in hidden self-disconnections, when customers have been without water for several days. That does not show up in official disconnection figures. I do not like pre-payment devices because of the danger of self-disconnection. It is a fundamental right that at least they should not be imposed on customers without their consent—a protection included in the Bill. I am amazed that even that proposal is opposed by Ofwat.

Anglian Water is ahead of Ofwat in customer protection. The company says in a letter to the National Consumer Council, dated 21 February 1994:

"We have never viewed prepayment meters as something to be imposed on particular groups of customers as a condition of supply. Section 3 of the Bill would therefore cause us little practical difficulty."

In the interests of customer choice, the Government must give a commitment that if pre-payment devices become widely available, they will carry the safeguards included in the Bill.

Yesterday, I had a letter from a man who said:

"I am going to get my water supply cut off one day next week if I don't pay my bill. I am on invalidity benefit and suffer from angina, high blood pressure, and asthma."

That is the sort of case that the Bill would prevent. I received a letter this morning from an East Sussex councillor who also runs a small plumbing business. He writes:

"I run a small plumbing business and I have been into dwellings where some cowboy builders have cut off water supplies and left people without water for days on end. The stench becomes appalling and the amount of flies do certainly help in the spread of people's ill health."

He says that he wants me to make the best use of this information.

In view of the evidence I have put before the House today, I urge the Government to accept the Bill as a positive contribution to solving the serious problems that afflict many people, especially the sick, the elderly and children. The Bill will play an important part in making life more acceptable and it will remove the threat and horror of water disconnection.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on the way in which he introduced the Bill. I fear that, from that point, we must diverge slightly because I consider that, although the Bill is well meaning, it is somewhat impractical. I have read the Bill with some care and I am tempted to think that I understand it. Thankfully, in any case, we are provided with what I suppose we must now call a preamble in this day and age, but which is officially entitled, "Explanatory and financial memorandum". I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that it is the very first paragraph that concerns me most because it states clearly, as did the right hon. Gentleman, that the intention of the Bill is to remove

"the present power of companies … to disconnect residential premises for non-payment of charges."

Despite the cases described by the right hon. Member for Salford, East—I have heard them before I served on the Committee that considered the Water Bill—I believe that the Bill is, in essence, a non-payers' charter and that it will badly affect the vast majority who do pay. The flaw in the right hon. Gentleman's argument was when he had to admit that Ofwat and its director-general were not keen on the Bill. In the light of that advice, we need to consider more carefully how practical the Bill is.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am flattered to have a choice on a Friday. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) will allow me, I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who is, like me, a member of the Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland it is illegal to disconnect domestic consumers from the water supply? If we live in a unitary state, as Conservatives argue, why is such disconnection illegal in Scotland, but legal in England and Wales?

I have no doubt that we shall discuss the position in Scotland at some length in the near future. The water supply system in Scotland currently requires £5 billion of new expenditure. One could argue that the figure might be slightly lower if everybody there paid their bills. We should look at the proportion of unpaid money there rather than just at whether it is legal to disconnect.

Some £5 billion worth of investment is needed in Scottish water and drainage undertakings. If that were to be shared among the 5 million people of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) wants, the capital investment would be £1,000 per person.

Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), my hon. Friend was discussing the general principle of the Bill. Can he reassure me on one matter? The Bill seems to ensure that goods or services will continue to be provided on credit whether or not the person can, or intends to, pay for them. There is no sanction to stop the continued provision of the specific goods or services—in this case, water. Like me, my hon. Friend is having difficulty finding another example in English law where the law is weighted so heavily in favour of the provision of goods on credit.

I accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Salford, East that water and sewerage services are uniquely needed in particular households. However, the way forward is not to introduce a Bill that makes the position of companies impossible, but to ensure that the poacher-gamekeeper relationship established in the Water Act 1989 is effective and up to date. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West for raising that issue. I fear that the Bill is a non-payers' charter that will not achieve its commendable objectives.

As a surveyor, it is not open to me to become a member of a Select Committee that considers the effect of bananas on Caribbean economies and to face the excitement of being arrested by warlords in Somalia. My outings tend to be to Willesden sewage station or similar places. I readily pay tribute to the staff at that sewage station. I had not been long in this place before I found myself on the Committee that discussed the privatisation of the water supply industry.

One example given by the right hon. Member for Salford, East of people being disconnected involved residents in mid-Kent. I think that he will find that their water was provided by a private water company that had become a statutory company long before the privatisation of the industry. Therefore, his comments were not related to the privatisation of the water industry.

The Water Bill was steered through the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary, who stressed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West mentioned, the poacher-gamekeeper relationship. Until privatisation, it was, in essence, a Government Department that dealt with such matters. If a complaint was made about disconnection or anything else, we would merely be asking one Government Department to look into another, which was a recipe for bureaucracy, red tape and inaction.

We had a lengthy Committee stage on the Water Bill. I mention its length for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), because I think that we are rehearsing the same arguments in the Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill to which I was recently promoted. Ofwat is the gamekeeper and the companies, the poacher. One looks after the other—guaranteeing standards and ensuring that customers and companies are placed in a reasonable position in relation to each other.

The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) confidently forecast the sort of tales that the right hon. Member for Salford, East recounted this morning. We heard lengthy descriptions of emaciated and dehydrated families up and down the land and pictures were painted of the greed of private companies. At that time the right hon. Member for Copeland and the hon. Member for Dewsbury were good socialists whose arguments were, "God gave us water and you have no right to privatise it." We would have to explain that, unfortunately, God did not give us the stopcocks, valves, pipes and the other bits necessary to that industry.

If the industry was in Government ownership and control, and the choice on Government expenditure was either an extra £1 billion for the national health service or the repair of a Victorian drain, we all know which would get the money, and probably rightly so. What was never explained, and has not been explained this morning, although the right hon. Gentleman could have done so, is why the Labour party is so much against those private water companies. What is the dogma behind all this, because we never found out at the time from the right hon. Member for Copeland? What we know is this. At that time, the people of France had a socialist Government—although they have seen the light since then—and despite its socialist Government, nearly all the water and sewerage undertakings were privately owned. In Britain, even at the time of privatisation, 25 per cent. of the country was supplied by private companies and statutory water undertakings, including, as I have said, one of the examples that was given by the right hon. Member for Salford, East.

We are not debating the renationalisation of the water industry. The Labour party has faced the reality that it is privatised. I want the hon. Gentleman and the House to face the facts of what happens now. Why does not Wessex Water cut anybody off, yet Southern Water does? Why are not people cut off in Scotland and Northern Ireland? The hon. Gentleman should face the reality of the present situation, not fight old battles.

I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to fight old battles that he has lost. I must say, however, that he does not approve of Southern Water for cutting people off and Wessex Water because they have a prepayment scheme. That came out quite clearly in his speech. Anything that the companies do is, according to the Bill and the right hon. Gentleman, patently wrong. I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East is in his place. No doubt we can continue, as the right hon. Gentleman said, these arguments in due course.

The right hon. Gentleman singularly failed to describe the pretty precise procedure that is laid down by Ofwat in agreement with the water companies. I find it rather extraordinary to read such a Bill at a time when we are hoping that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will go through the House.

I note that my hon. Friend keeps saying that Ofwat and the water companies are in complete agreement. Perhaps that is one of the problems. Ofwat is supposed to be there to look at what the water companies are doing. Recently, Diana Scott, the chairman of Yorkshire Water's customer services committee, who has done a superb job on behalf of consumers, was removed—because she rattled too many cages during her work—and somebody else appointed by Ofwat.

What I was trying to say was that it was a matter for Ofwat and the companies—in some cases, for Ofwat as regulator to direct the companies. I am not saying that they should always be in agreement. It is patently clear that, frequently, they have not been. I do not shed many tears when I hear the companies screaming that Ofwat has been unfair to them. They have substantial resources. It is quite right that the public should be protected. Ofwat has been selected to do just that. It probably achieves a fair balance and has done so ever since the industry was privatised. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend on my position. I will check Hansard in due course to see whether I said that that was my intention.

I was hoping that in this day and age we were deregulators. If I am ever fortunate—or perhaps unfortunate—enough to win the ballot for private Members' Bills, I think that I shall introduce the Roger Knapman Reduction of Legislation Bill. It would work something like this. Every time there were 10 Bills going through this place and ready for Royal Assent, I would introduce another one to decide which of them was good enough to receive Royal Assent. If there were a Labour Government, it would be one in a hundred. We need less legislation. The Bill is not necessary, because it does not take into account the facts relating to disconnection. I should have thought it patently obvious that the water companies use the power of disconnection reluctantly, because of the publicity that ensues. The right hon. Gentleman has not commented that only nine out of 10,000 customers have been disconnected and seven out of the nine have been reconnected within 48 hours. If the number of disconnections can be reduced further through negotiation between Ofwat and the companies, all well and good.

Despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that the ultimate sanction is imposed not on those who cannot pay, but on those who will not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West pointed out, the companies concerned would be placed in an impossible position if that ultimate sanction were removed from this service: it is unique in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) suggest that a unique proposition is involved. Currently, someone who fails to pay his council tax is, quite properly, taken to court and procedures are undertaken to ensure that he pays it. That person's children, however, are not prohibited from going to school and using council services. I argue that that is a precise analogy with the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme).

I do not agree. That is precisely why Ofwat and the companies have agreed a very detailed procedure and why demands for payment continue for a full six months before the cases described by the right hon. Gentleman can arise. There are six months of negotiation about the bills involved. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, I consider that a reasonable period in which to determine whether it is a case of "can't pay" or a case of "won't pay". If it is "can't pay", no action will be taken: I am convinced of that. If it is "won't pay", in the final analysis—in certain very limited circumstances—it may be necessary to disconnect.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that does not apply to a customer who, because of difficult financial circumstances, has experienced problems in paying a water bill and has already reached an arrangement with the water company in regard to payment which then collapses? It will not be a case of six months then; the company will be entitled to disconnect much sooner.

Has the hon. Lady any evidence that, in those circumstances, any company has failed to comply with requests from the Department of Social Security for specified customers not to be disconnected? If so, she may include that evidence in her own speech—if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that, if the right hon. Member for Salford, East had had any such evidence, he would have included it in his speech; the fact that he did not shows that this is a dog that did not bark in the night. The hon. Lady's comments bring me to the way in which companies now approach such cases, through agreement with Ofwat.

I think that the uniqueness of the Bill stems from the fact that it restricts the ability of privately owned enterprise to withdraw its service in the event of wilful non-payment. All the examples cited by Opposition Members involve state services, which ultimately are under political control.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Despite the denial issued by the right hon. Member for Salford, East, that is what the debate and the Bill are all about—sheer hatred of private profit-making companies. The Opposition have not got over that and I suspect that some of them never will.

It is nothing to do with a hatred of privatisation. I support the Bill, but I do not remember standing up in the House and shrieking my opposition to privatisation. As my hon. Friend develops his argument, however—if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I may make such a statement.

I would not dream of writing my hon. Friend's speech for her; but I know that she, like me, supports the privatisation of the industry. What we seek is fair and substantial regulation of it, because it provides a vital commodity: on that we can agree. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say—and she will say it soon, provided that I do not give way too many more times.

This is how the companies deal with these matters. First, a bill is issued. We have all studied our water bills and seen, on the back of them, instructions on what to do if one cannot pay, but that is not the end of it. One does not suddenly turn on the tap and find that there is no water.

First, there is a reminder. After a further period there is a pre-summons notice. That warns the customer that if there is no compliance at that stage costs may be incurred. Later there is a visit and/or a solicitor's letter, and at that stage the company will try to negotiate payment arrangements.

Notification is given to the customer that the company has received a judgment order and that the payment arrangements must then be made to avoid disconnection. Even after that, a notice of disconnection is delivered by hand and at that stage the company attempts to make face-to-face contact with the customer to seek some type of payment arrangement—not payment of the bill, just payment of even part of the bill. Then a final visit will be made before disconnection and even at that stage the company will negotiate a payment arrangement.

That sequence of events takes about six months to achieve. The number of disconnections is very small. As an ultimate sanction, disconnections are necessary to the water companies and they are aimed at those people who will not pay, not at those who cannot pay. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) will not be tempted to support the Bill.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on achieving a Second Reading debate on this excellent Bill, which has such widespread support in the country. There is no doubt that the Bill originated in the alarming figures that were published in November 1992, which showed an increase in water disconnections during the years since privatisation from about 3,000 disconnections a year to more than 21,000. It was that startling increase that led so many organisations throughout the country to come together at a meeting in February 1993 with the Institute of Environmental Health Officers, housing organisations and community groups, who were pulled together by the Campaign for Water Justice, to urge a number of Members of Parliament to introduce a Bill that would outlaw the disconnection of water from domestic properties that are lived in.

Those arguments were obviously based on assumptions that arose from other pieces of legislation. When I first recognised the increase that had taken place, I was reminded of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It is illegal for a workplace to be without a constant supply of clean running water. If that is the law of the land for workplaces, how many of us—I say "us" for obvious reasons—spend many, many years of our lives with the home as our main place of work, often in a caring capacity with children or with elderly people? The Children Act 1989 and the community care regulations would render it out of the question for a residential establishment to continue to stay open if there were not a constant supply of clean and adequate running water.

Similarly, we were minded in February 1993, at the time of the housing legislation, that for years local authorities and environmental health officers have been under a duty, under the housing legislation, to declare unfit for human habitation houses that did not have a constant supply of clean and running water.

There were, therefore, many reasons why people backed the call in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to make the disconnection of water to domestic property illegal.

And Wales.

And in Wales—I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.

Would the hon. Lady apply the principle that she has just outlined to premises that are squatted and, if so, why? Surely in such circumstances there is no possibility of the supplier of water recovering the cost of the water being supplied other than by disconnection.

That is a red herring. We are discussing property—homes—in which people are living legitimately and for which they pay their council tax.

Will the hon. Lady point out the part of the Bill that excludes squatted premises from the general disconnection power?

It is clear that the Bill refers to houses that are lived in and are recognised as such.

Because of pressure from various organisations across the country, we introduced a ten-minute Bill on 13 May last year. It was supported by many hon. Members and received widespread publicity, partly because of research emerging at that time which showed a sharp increase in cases of dysentery. It sharpened focus on the potential for a worsening of the standards of public health if there was an increase in the number of families living in homes without an adequate clean water supply.

It was, therefore, natural that organisations such as those representing health visitors and midwives and, more recently, the British Medical Association itself and the Institute of Public Health Officers came on board. Although the health bodies are not saying that there is a direct correlation between water disconnections and the increase in dysentery, they are saying—rightly—that it should not be necessary to have to argue again and again that a home without clean water is a health hazard to the family living in it and to the people living nearby. As a representative of the BMA said on Tuesday, it is matter of basic hygiene that we wash our hands after going to the toilet. If such basic hygiene cannot be complied with, there is a risk of infection in the dwelling and, for that reason, if for no other, the Bill should be supported.

I am sure that hon. Members are aware of the fact—although we should remind ourselves of it—that 80 per cent. of the world's disease is attributable in one way or another to the lack of water or to unclean, impure water. There is not an acute shortage of water in this country; by and large, we have adequate plumbing.

Therefore, it is extremely important that we, among United Nations countries, should take the lead in emphasising that this key commodity to public health and civilised living is something to which we are proud that every house in the country will have access.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said that access to education is not denied to people who have problems paying their council tax. In this context, the commodity of water is so crucial to healthy living that it must be seen alongside services such as the fire service, the police and the health service. We do not query someone's income tax record of payment before we say that he can be connected on a 999 call.

What sanction would the hon. Lady suggest for those who will not pay, although they can afford to do so?

There are clear sanctions for debt collection through the courts for those who do not pay their income tax or local taxes and they should be brought into play, as they are in Scotland and Northern Ireland, for people who do not pay other debts. [Interruption.] I am conscious of the time and I want to ensure that other hon. Members can get in.

I challenge head on the concept that 1,456 homes—30 a week—were disconnected in Yorkshire last year. It is simply not the case that all those disconnections related to non-payers. If they were analysed, one would find that they related to people in severe financial hardship but not necessarily on income support. Many families in this country are in severe financial hardship and in low-paid occupations but not necessarily on income support, so the Department of Social Security does not always have a chance even to intervene in such cases.

Now is the time for the Government to allow the Bill to go forward because the water industry is preparing its new form of charging systems to follow on from the present system of rateable value charging. It would be to the credit of this Parliament, the House and even the Government to take on board and include in the new regulations and the new considerations of charging for water the requirement that disconnections should be made illegal. That is what we are asking for in the Bill. I compliment my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East on bringing the Bill to the House and I hope that it makes progress.

We have already heard that water is essential to life and therefore is always essential to all residential properties. There is no substitute for it. Therefore, I believe that disconnections of household water supplies should be made illegal. They do not take place in Scotland and Northern Ireland and, as we are part of the United Kingdom, I am sure that water companies in England could follow exactly the same procedure.

Any household that does not have running and clean water runs health and welfare risks. In such households, people cannot even wash vegetables to cook. They have no means of bathing and no means of flushing toilets. It is not only my belief that any property that does not have that supply is considered unfit for human habitation; I understand that that is the law. As far as I can remember, we have spent the past 50 years clearing properties that did not have that service piped in. If we have spent time, money and effort over the years on doing that, I do not think that we should give water companies the ability and the legal right to disconnect those supplies.

It is true that Ofwat and the water companies often agree. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that they agree far too often. Perhaps we want a director of Ofwat rather like Sir James McKinnon of British Gas. He made great achievements and perhaps should be reappointed, but only to be in charge of water.

It is said that disconnections do not last more than a few days. I wonder how many of us have tried to survive in any household or establishment without water even for a few days. Of course, Ofwat and the water companies say that people then pay their bills. Yes, they do, and I am quite sure that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) suggested, many of those who won't pay do pay.

It is also true that many of those who can't pay eventually pay, because they are desperate for water supplies. How do they pay? They must go out and borrow money, often from a loan shark because that is the only place where they can get it. That puts them deeper into debt, so they will be worse off the next time they get a water bill.

I believe that water companies have systems for helping people, but I could give the House a list of the times when those systems have fallen down and because of that we have seen a huge increase in water disconnections. Although the number has decreased during the past 18 months, that has been only because the water companies have been aware of the campaign to do something about their charges and they have taken more care. I shall be interested to see whether the number stays reduced, or whether it goes up.

The Royal College of Nursing has said:

"A clean water supply is essential for human life. Cleaning up water supplies in the nineteenth century was one of the key improvements in public health that transformed the epidemiological situation in Britain."

Much of the disease which occurred in the back streets in houses not fit for human habitation was cut out. The college also said:

"In 1992 there were over 22,000 disconnections, which represents a three-fold increase over the previous year".

I admit that since then the numbers have decreased, which I believe is due partly to the interest that Parliament is taking. The college went on to say:

"There is some evidence to show that many disconnections are not notified to the local authority despite the attendant health risks … This is despite the legal obligation of the water company to do so."

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health said in a parliamentary answer:

"The rise in notification of dysentery in 1992 was seen in all major conurbations other than London. Trends in dysentery also exhibit a periodicity, with peaks every seven to eight years, although the peak in 1992 was higher than other peaks in the previous two decades."—[Official Report, 10 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 395.]

That obviously comes from official figures and tells us a little about the problem. I believe that if disconnections are banned in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, water companies in England should not have the power to disconnect water to residential premises, even in cases of non-payment. I believe that, in such cases, they have and should use other means of recovering that debt.

I shall be deliberately brief because I am hopeful that the Bill will receive a Second Reading and move into Committee. I hope and trust that there will be no attempt from Conservative Members deliberately to talk it out.

I begin by paying a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) for taking up the issue and for introducing the Bill in such a splendid fashion this afternoon. I also pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who has pursued the issue so ably and consistently for more than two years.

I note in passing that not one Liberal Democrat Member has been present for any of the debate. It is clearly something in which that party is totally uninterested, and I trust that that point will be made strongly elsewhere.

It is a point that I have made on occasional Fridays. It is possible that Liberal Democrat Members did not know that the Bill would be reached. Other than that, I am with the hon. Gentleman.

Water is an essential commodity for life, health and hygiene. That is why I would put water in a completely different category from the normal run of goods and services of which people might well be deprived if they could not pay for them. As water is such an essential commodity, we really must make sure that it continues to be available to everyone. It is not acceptable in a civilised society to disconnect water simply to recover debt.

We know what happened. After privatisation, the figures for disconnections soared. In the past year or so they have started to inch their way down, largely as a result of pressure from Members of Parliament. Even so, on average more than 300 families every week face disconnection of their water supply. That is not acceptable. I hope that the Government will ensure that the Bill goes forward today and reaches the statute book. I give a commitment that if, for some dastardly reason, the Government do not permit the Bill to go forward, a Labour Government will certainly legislate to put it on the statute book.

I follow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) with some trepidation. He made an excellent and moving speech earlier this week. It is ironic that we find ourselves clashing so soon on another issue.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that water is one of the fundamental human rights in a civilised society. I do not resent the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) feels that the purpose of a Bill such as this is in a typically high Tory tradition. Throughout the 19th century and well into the 20th, the Conservative party introduced much socially desirable legislation motivated by the same high ideals to create a civilised and humane society.

However, the question is whether that purpose could not be achieved by other and perhaps fairer means. The main objection to the Bill, which would prevent water companies legitimately applying pressure to collect their debts, is that it enfranchises the "won't pay" customer to the detriment of other customers. Other customers would have to pay for the services for which wilful non-payers refused to pay their share.

There is surely a limit to which we can go in a civilised society to insulate people from what they wilfully do to the detriment of society as a whole. If they wilfully refuse to pay debts that they are capable of paying, it does not seem sensible to give them yet more power and leverage to exploit the system.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his argument would break down if it could be shown convincingly that the vast majority of people who do not pay are short of money and do not pay because they cannot pay or they have not managed to make arrangements to pay in small instalments?

I would accept that if it could be proved. The onus is on the hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends to prove it. They have not done so and I shall cite examples in my constituency that paint a strong alternative picture.

This debate does no harm and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on the fact that we are having it and on introducing the Bill. I do not dispute the fact that it is legitimate to apply public pressure to make the water companies behave responsibly. I have no doubt that their employees may have applied the sanction of disconnection in a way that is not entirely as we might wish. However, that does not mean that there is a case for passing legislation which will affect all customers, to the detriment of the majority, in order to deal with the problem.

One question asked during the debate is why Wessex Water has made no disconnections during the past six months, although other companies have done so. Water companies may well be able to work for some time without disconnecting anyone, but that does not necessarily mean that they have not benefited from the availability of that sanction. If we take it away it would not necessarily mean that we would be leaving Wessex Water in the position that it is in now, because its customers know that it is legal to disconnect the water of a wilful non-payer and so they behave accordingly and pay their bills.

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen mentioned public health problems at length. There is no solid evidence to connect the recent peak in the incidence of dysentery with water disconnections. I have here a brief from the House of Commons Library which refers to several claims in the newspapers during the past few months. It states:

"However, there is no evidence in any of these reports of a direct causal link between the disconnections and dysentery or hepatitis outbreaks."

The Library official continues:

"I have spoken to officials at Sandwell Health Authority, who are conducting a study into the issue … They said that in their study, they found a strong correlation between the postcodes of homes which had been disconnected and the postcodes of people who had been infected with dysentery or hepatitis. However, they said that this correlation does not necessarily mean there was a direct link between the two issues, but that it could just reflect the poverty in the areas covered by the postcodes."

The real issue is not that a few people are being disconnected by the water industry for not paying their bills, but the level of water bills. There are a number of methods that the Government could use to reduce water bills. Perhaps we could require Ofwat to consider a higher gearing level in the privatised water companies. They are safe investments and have an incredibly secure cash flow. Why cannot they borrow more and charge less? Ofwat and the water companies should consider that. Perhaps it needs public pressure, but it is not something that we should necessarily legislate for.

I shall now examine the way in which Anglian Water treats its customers in the North Colchester constituency. If it sends out a bill in March, with a pay-by date at the end of April, the reminder—with an advance notice of legal action—would not go out until early May. That would be followed up, in most cases, with a pre-summons visit and at that point a pro-active opportunity is generated by the water company to get involved with the customer's difficulties and understand the issues. It might refer to social services to find out whether the customer is on income support or in difficulties. It will gain a county court summons only if it is constantly beset by obstructions and wilful non-payment. That is followed by the first of two pre-cut-off visits. I would describe that as exemplary behaviour and perhaps Ofwat should require it of all water companies.

I have made a note of how that water company operates. Undoubtedly, many follow those procedures, but occasionally the system falls down because the companies know that they have the ultimate disconnection procedure. Those companies may not always be careful to go through the various stages.

There are two types of regulation. There is regulation which requires a ban or offers a blanket assertion. It is that type of regulation that is getting our industry and our competitiveness into all kinds of difficulties. The kind of regulation that is far more preferable is that which assesses the cost benefit of a particular action or guideline.

It is that type of regulation that means that airlines stay airborne, because we could overregulate aircraft to the extent that they would be totally uneconomic to fly. We do not do that, but make hard decisions about how many millions of dollars a life is worth. If it costs more than a certain amount, a particular safety feature does not end up on an aeroplane. We need to consider disconnections in the same way. I am merely arguing that the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking are desirable, but that the Bill is the wrong way to go about it.

From April last year until now, Anglian Water, which supplies part of my constituency, disconnected a mere 29 customers. Twenty five of them have been reconnected; three paid their bill in full, 18 made arrangements to pay in monthly instalments—in one or two cases those payments are as little as £1 a week—and two made direct arrangements with the Department of Social Security. Of the 25 who were reconnected, 19 were reconnected within a mere two days. That is the kind of practice which we need to promote and which can be promoted without the right hon. Gentleman's Bill.

It may be helpful if I set out the Government's approach to the Bill.

Water is a precious commodity. It is essential to life, health and hygiene. We all want high standards of drinking water quality, clean beaches, safe bathing waters and effective systems of sewage disposal. Continuously raising such water standards involves continuing investment of further money.

At the privatisation of the water industry we invested £1,572 million in a green dowry for water services. Since privatisation, the water companies have invested a further £3 billion, on average, each year in improving water quality and striving to meet tough environmental targets. Such investment is massive. It works out at approximately £8 million each day, £5,000 every minute and £960 per household in the five years to 1995.

North West Water alone, which supplies water to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the promoter of the Bill, invested almost £500 million in improvements last year and, on average, £189 was spent on each customer's property. It is planning to spend £150 million on the Fleetwood Marsh waste water treatment plant, which will clean up the Blackpool and Fylde coasts, and £400 million on improving the bathing waters of the north-west, again including Blackpool. Those are substantial sums of money.

That essential investment in improving water standards is unparalleled in our history, and what a contrast it is with the previous Labour Government, who cut their spending on the water industry generally by 30 per cent. and specifically cut their capital investment on sewage treatment by 50 per cent.

Such investment must be paid for and it is fair and reasonable that water customers overall should meet such costs. We have ensured that a regulator, the Director General of Water Services—Ofwat—is in place to help ensure a proper balance between continued and further environmental improvement, and manageable bills.

It is important to get water bills into perspective. Those who seek to be alarmist tend to quote percentage increases without referring to actual costs. That happened this morning when the right hon. Member for Salford, East referred to percentage increases without mentioning the actual cost of water. It is important to make that clear. The average cost of water to the average household in England is about 51p a day—less than the cost of a bottle of fizzy water. That is a reasonable sum to enable the water companies to ensure high standards.

How much of that 51p a day goes into the water companies' profits?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not been listening. I made it clear that the water companies have been investing substantial sums in water infrastructure. It would be impossible for them to make that investment if they were losing money. We all know what happened to the water industry when it was a nationalised industry and at the behest of Treasury external financing limits. In 1976, all investment in capital spending in the water industry was cut overnight.

Whatever the level of water charges to customers, some people will have difficulty in meeting the bill and some simply will not pay. The Bill deals with the treatment of such customers. We consider it right that customers should be expected to pay their bills. That is not a new concept. To hear some hon. Members speak today, one would think that the concept was either new or had been introduced since privatisation.

The framework for regulating the water industry in terms of disconnections is exactly the same as it has been since the Water Act 1945, which came into effect under a Labour Government. Under that legislation, water undertakers in England and Wales had access to provisions to disconnect a water supply for non-payment. As there seems to be some misunderstanding about that, I quote from the relevant legislation. It states:

"where a person fails to pay within seven days after a demand therefor any instalment of a water rate payable by him in respect of any premises, the undertaker may cut off the supply of water to the premises and recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing".

So the provisions for the disconnection of water are not new. They go back almost half a century. Such a power is still necessary as an ultimate sanction against those who can but will not pay. Equally, those who have difficulty in paying should be given every assistance to enable them to do so.

To hear Opposition Members speak, one would think that disconnection was instant upon non-payment following receipt of a bill. That is far from the truth. The procedures involved are quite protracted, involving written communication with the customer and lasting, on avergae, some six months. Typically, customers receive a bill with details of what to do if they cannot pay. They then receive a reminder that the bill has not been paid and, subsequently, a notice of the company's intention to issue a summons and warning of the additional costs that the customer will thus incur. That is followed by a visit and/or a solicitor's letter, an attempt to negotiate payment arrangements and, where no arrangement is entered into, the subsequent issue of a summons.

If payment is still not received, an application is made to the court for a judgment order. The customer is then notified that the company has received an order and that payment must be made to avoid disconnection. Finally, if all else has failed, a disconnection notice is delivered by hand and, after further attempts to seek agreement over payment arrangements, a visit is made to disconnect the water supply. Even at this late stage, the company will still negotiate a payment arrangement if the customer is willing. All of that takes a very considerable period—on average, about six months.

The Water Act 1989 built on the statutory framework of the 1945 Act and strengthened safeguards for customers. A number of the provisions introduced then were specifically designed to meet the concerns voiced at the time by consumer representative bodies. The result was a much more demanding legislative regime on disconnection for non-payment and a more comprehensive code of practice, enforceable by the Director General of Water Services, as part of water companies' licences. That was far more demanding than anything previously experienced or enjoyed by the water consumer or required—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that if the Minister had terminated his remarks after seven and a half minutes and then sat down, there being no other hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate and rising in their places, we could have proceeded to a decision on Second Reading?

That is hypothetical. We do not speculate like that.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about this important facility for young homeless people which is located in Lewisham, West, although its importance stretches far wider. I am not sure what mystical processes allocate Adjournment debates, but I am grateful for having been granted this opportunity, at relatively short notice. I shall try to remain temperate in my language, although I come here today feeling a mixture of anger and sorrow at the prospect that the Lawrie Park road hostel for young homeless will close. It is to close because of the deliberate actions of the Department of the Environment.

I have raised the matter in the House on previous occasions, including the Consolidated Fund debate in July 1992. I have met the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction on a number of occasions and I have written on far more occasions. I am pessimistic, to put it mildly, about what is likely to emerge from today's debate, given the fact that the Minister with whom I have been dealing all this time is not here today. Doubtless his precious time is occupied elsewhere. This does not bode well for the response that I am likely to get. I rise with a heavy heart because the attitude of the Department to date has been one of simple-minded repetition of current Government policy without any recognition of the project's value, not just to the young people whom it serves, but a far wider community in London.

I am extremely angry and sorry that what is likely to emerge from the business is the irrecoverable loss of an extremely valuable asset. The circumstances, efforts and commitment that produced the hostel are unlikely to be replicated, so my speech is probably, to that extent, a swan song. I am determined that the valuable asset of the Lawrie Park hostel should not

"go gentle into that good night"

if it is to be consigned to the dustbin by the Government.

The hostel is designed for 16 to 25-year-old single, homeless people off the streets, predominantly in central London. It suffers the misfortune of being located on the borders of my constituency in the London borough of Lewisham and Bromley. It is an extremely desirable, location, with a few trees and grass around it, unlike the normal surroundings associated with short-term direct access hostels for the homeless in London.

The hostel is purpose-built accommodation, not a draughty church hall. It was originally a management training centre and is still owned by the National Westminster bank. The accommodation is of a remarkably high standard compared with what young, single homeless people in London normally have to put up with. To some degree, those high standards have proved its downfall. It offers experiences and opportunities denied to many of London's homeless young people, but it is likely to close for good.

The hostel originally opened in December 1991 under the Government's former cold weather shelter scheme. It was funded until March 1992. The funding was, unsurprisingly, extended to the end of May 1992 and then for a couple of weeks into June. It does not take a genius to realise that a general election took place between March and June 1992. The last outstanding demand of the chartists is that there should be annual elections. If the net effect of that would mean that the Government's generosity and largesse was displayed every year, I would support that demand. I have no doubt that the election was a fundamental factor in keeping the project open.

The hostel obtained funding by various means through the summer of 1992—principally through the efforts of the South London Housing Family Association, which strove commendably to maintain that important resource until it qualified for cold weather payments in the winter of 1992–93. I met the Minister on various occasions during 1992 to ensure that that valuable resource was not lost. In the middle of last year, a revised rough sleepers initiative strategy document was published. I have no doubt that the Lawrie Park hostel not only meets every criteria in that document, but exceeds by a wide margin the minimum requirements.

The hostel's greatest failing is that it is not located in central London. Even though it draws the overwhelming majority of its residents from central London, the fact that it is located in south-east London means that it does not qualify. I have no doubt that the hostel meets those funding criteria as well as those of the Housing Corporation. It met every criterion, but, because the Government were seeking to reduce the amount of money available for the rough sleepers initiative as another post-election cut, the hostel's funding for the winter of 1993–94 was eliminated. The young people, particularly those of south London, have to pay for the Government's cut through the closure of the hostel. I shall demonstrate how the elimination of the hostel's funding has been crucial to the sad and deeply hurtful decision to close the project.

The hostel was funded in part by close co-operation with the London borough of Lewisham. The South London Family Housing Association has invested about £250,000 in the two years that it has existed. Unfortunately, that is a burden that it can no longer carry. Revenue funding is crucial to the project. Approaches to the Housing Corporation seem to show that capital funding for the acquisition of the building and its institution as a permanent project is likely.

I have already mentioned the determination that the South London Family Housing Association has shown, with its energy and drive. It has devised a comprehensive project, utilising many agencies, groups and energies to provide an opportunity for some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, save for the support of the Department of the Environment and the critical revenue funding that has not been forthcoming. I believe that all that will be wasted in future. As I mentioned, it will be impossible to recreate and will all have been for nothing.

Although many will have benefited in the past two years, those who come after them will be left to fight for a place somewhere on the streets of London. I can do no better than quote from a couple of letters from the managing director of the South London Family Housing Association. When I was first notified of the impending closure of the hostel, he said:

"With several other direct access hostels and short term provision also closing this Spring, I can foresee single homelessness reappearing in the street in a significant way. The Government must provide some better sources of revenue support."

In the few moments that I have left, I can read only part of a further letter in which he said:

"In total we estimate that up to 500 people have passed through the hostel. Recently the hostel has come under increasing pressure from homeless young people and has been absolutely full—55 young people—since early January."—

There are equal numbers of young men and women. While all young people who are forced to live on the streets of London are vulnerable, young women must be the most vulnerable group of all. That hostel has provided equally for young men and women.

"We have secured a lot of local support for our volunteers and a number of local schools, among them Dulwich College, are preparing to make links and raise some funds for us. We had also made plans for linking the hostel (as far as Lewisham people are concerned) with a 'Foyer' in Sydenham Road, opposite the library, which would provide a place residents could have moved on to and take a suitable training course, probably at Lewisham College on a Training for Work scheme."

The most important features of the project have been:

"half of all the single homeless in London are from London itself and the best way to provide for them is with direct access hostels near to where they have some connections rather than forcing them into the West End because there is no local provision … we were able to show that local boroughs will join together to tackle this problem despite tight budgets: Lewisham (and to an extent Bromley) were especially supportive. Given more time and some more matching funds, Southwark, Lambeth and Croydon might have joined in. The problem with running direct access hostels is that there is simply no one source of funding to turn to. For Lawrie Park, SLFHA, and Centrepoint secured funds from London Boroughs Grants Unit, the London Housing Foundation, Tudor Trust, LB Lewisham, LB Lambeth, LB Southwark and potentially from the Housing Corporation. All of these took time and effort to secure—and we remain £120,000 short of the annual sum we need to staff the hostel with 2 staff on duty at all times … Meanwhile SLFHA itself has put in £250,000 to keep the hostel open. The Government must provide some simpler route for revenue funding for direct access hostels of this kind, outside central London, otherwise it is simply impossible to make them happen."

I briefly draw the Minister's attention to the early-day motion on the rough sleepers initiative, which indicates that it has been successful so far as it goes, but the problem of young homelessness is not restricted to central London; it exists not only in outer London and the part of inner London that I represent, but in every city. If all that the Government can do is concentrate their efforts in the central London area, they will create a magnet that will drag young people from all around the country to the only place where they can get decent support.

A note was passed to me before I came into the Chamber to say that the South London Family Housing Association, in connection with Centrepoint, is organising a conference this September to discuss the problem of young homelessness in south London, which has been occasioned particularly by the impending closure of the Lawrie Park road hostel. I hope that the Minister will make a commitment—if not on his own behalf, on behalf of his Department—to attend the conference and discuss the problems that the closure of the hostel will leave in south London.

As you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have papers sent by numerous organisations—by hostel residents, the Housing Corporation, the housing departments of Lewisham, Bromley, Southwark and Lambeth, the London Connection young homeless project, the Longstop project, Stopover Lewisham, Centrepoint Soho, Shelter, the Mental Health Team single homeless project, Letts house Croydon direct access hostel, Deptford centre, Shaftesbury homeless project and numerous others. They all describe the insurmountable difficulties that the closure of Lawrie Park road hostel would create for homeless young people in south London.

I appeal to the Minister. It is not too late to provide the kind of support that such a valuable project needs. It must not be allowed simply to wither on the vine. It has been said in another context that, if someone is given a fish, he can be fed for a day, but if he is taught to fish, he can be fed for life. That is what the hostel does: it not only gets young homeless people off the streets, but it makes it possible for them to stay off the streets. It has undertaken to perform that task perhaps too well, and it continues to do so.

If I did not consider them to be totally incapable of shame, I would say that it was to the Government's eternal shame that that work is to be frittered away and wasted because of their short-sighted meanness. There will be victims of the closure of the hostel; hon. Members may not be able to put names to them, but they will see them again on the streets of central London.

I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) for raising the important question of the funding of local services for single homeless people outside central London and for giving me the opportunity to comment and to clarify a number of issues that are clearly being misunderstood.

It is clearly important to recognise the valuable work that projects such as the Lawrie Park road hostel in Sydenham can contribute to the relief of homelessness among single people, but it is also important to recognise that responsibility for all homelss people properly rests with local housing authorities. Local authorities are in the best position to assess local needs; and each local authority is required, when drawing together its housing strategy, to consider the needs of all homeless people within its area, including the single homeless.

It is not for central Government to decide which local housing services should be funded and in what way: indeed, I think that local authorities would be rightly indignant if Ministers in Whitehall sought to tell them how they should deliver every detail of their housing programmes, what local housing should be funded and in what way it should be funded.

In central London, however, we recognised the particular problems of people sleeping rough, to which it was reasonable for the Government to direct extra help and resources. That we have done through the rough sleepers initiative. The initiative is working alongside the voluntary and statutory sectors, with the aim of proventing and relieving homelessness among single people.

We committed £96 million to the first phase of the initiative, in 1990–93. As part of that, we funded the South London Family Housing Association to run 50 bed spaces at the Lawrie Park road hostel during the winters of 1991–92 and 1992–93. The funds were part of a programme to provide shelter for people who might otherwise have slept rough in central London during the winter months.

During the early stage of the rough sleepers initiative, we were unable to confine all the cold weather projects that we funded to the centre of London. Therefore, the net was widened to fund several schemes in the outer London boroughs, one of which was the Lawrie Park road hostel. I understand—and the hon. Gentleman has confirmed— that the South London Family Housing Association kept the hostel open, using other sources of funds, during the summer of 1992.

The first phase of the rough sleepers initiative in central London has been very successful in helping people—especially young people—to start a new life away from the streets. Independent research into the first phase of the initiative, undertaken by Geoffrey Randall, has shown that it has helped several thousand people to find accommodation and has prevented many more from becoming homeless in the first place. The strategy for the second phase of the rough sleepers initiative was published in June last year after wide consultation with the voluntary and local authority sectors. The strategy proposes an additional £86 million funding available for three years to 1996 to build on the success of the original rough sleepers initiative. It is to be targeted on central London, where many rough sleepers remain concentrated.

SLFHA was well aware, and has been aware for some time, that its winter shelter funding would end in March last year and that, being located in Lewisham, several miles from central London, there was scant prospect of further RSI funding being directed towards Lawrie Park road. I think that that had been made clear to it on many occasions. SLFHA has kept the hostel open since last March, when Government funding ended, using its own resources.

I understand that SLFHA has, rightly, approached five neighbouring London local authorities, Lewisham, Bromley, Lambeth, Southwark and Croydon—because, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said, that hostel is located on the border of a number of London boroughs—with a view to working in partnership, with each borough contributing a share of the revenue costs needed to operate the Lawrie Park road hostel in future years. Unfortunately, only two authorities—Lewisham and Bromley—have agreed to that request. That is obviously most disappointing.

It is understandable that Lewisham borough council is unwilling to meet alone the full cost of the Lawrie Park road hostel if neighbouring authorities benefit freely from the services on offer by having that facility on their doorstep. It is to the mutual advantage of all the neighbouring boroughs that that facility exists to help people in their boroughs. They may have withheld funding in the hope that the Government might be persuaded to fund the hostel directly, but, for the reasons that I have set out, we do not see it as appropriate that we should do so and now, knowing that, those boroughs may review their previous decision.

Moreover, those five London boroughs' decisions not to fund the Lawrie Park road hostel should be put in the context that, in the financial year 1994–95, those five local authorities between them have been allocated a total of more than £93 million in grants under the Department's housing investment programme. I am surprised that, between them, the local authorities could not put together a proper "rescue package"—a proper package for Lawrie Park road hostel to maintain and sustain its revenue costs.

Having failed to secure sufficient long-term funding from the local authorities or other charitable sources, SLFHA has decided that it has no option but to close Lawrie Park road hostel. I am sure that such a decision has been taken reluctantly, but obviously that is a decision for the association and it alone.

The number of people sleeping rough in central London continues to decline. From voluntary sector estimates of more than 1,000 before the RSI began in 1990, it had declined from that peak to 287 in a count undertaken last November by Homeless Network—an umbrella group representing 20 voluntary organisations in central London. Of those 287 people, only three were aged under 18. Fewer than 40 others were aged between 18 and 25. The vast majority, therefore—about 240—were aged more than 25. Since that count was taken, we have opened up 350 bed spaces in seven cold weather shelters throughout central London. Those shelters are open from 1 December to 31 March and provide free, direct access and basic accommodation during the cold winter months. Up to 250 further places are available in the event of especially severe weather. Those emergency beds have been called into service on four occasions this winter, but no more than 55 places have ever been occupied on any one night.

Voluntary street-level agencies being funded under the rough sleepers initiative in central London have told us that they are able to make early contact with newly street homeless young people who are almost always willing to take up offers of accommodation. The rough sleepers initiative is continuing to make temporary hostel places available specifically for young people under the extended initivative. These people then have access to some 3,300 units of permanent new accommodation being developed under the initiative.

The voluntary agencies who work to resettle people currently in RSI temporary accommodation are encouraged to look not merely to the RSI-funded permanent accommodation but to the public or private sectors and housing associations.

Is it the thrust of the Government's message that young homeless people—not only from around London but from across the country—should come to central London?

The thrust of the Government's message is that there is a duty on the borough of Lewisham and its neighbours to meet the needs of the homeless in those boroughs. They are given considerable funds to enable them to do so. It is no good the hon. Gentleman brandishing wodges of paper from various London boroughs, all of which—with the exception of the two that I mentioned—have refused to support the Lawrie Park road hostel. If the hostel is doing such good work—as the hon. Gentleman suggests—I should have thought that the directors of housing and the housing committees of the boroughs involved would have had no difficulty in making a contribution between them towards the revenue costs of the hostel.

All the substantial RSI funds are now fully committed. If we were to accede to further demands to fund additional hostel places, it could only be at the expense of some of the planned 3,300 permanent developments and the key element of the programme is to ensure that people can move on from sleeping rough on the streets and into permanent accommodation.

Furthermore, some 950 places in temporary hostel accommodation will have been phased out by the end of the initiative in March 1996. In most cases, the closure of the temporary hostels is outside our control because the leases on the buildings are due to end or the sites are being redeveloped.

As part of the extended initiative, some resources are being targeted on five zones in central London, such as the Strand/west end and the bull ring at Waterloo, where there are large remaining concentrations of people sleeping rough. In those zones, consortia have been set up with representatives of the voluntary sector, local authority housing and social services departments, the police, local health service providers and the local business community to co-operate in pursuing common aims and objectives to relieve street homelessness in a given geographical area.

In particular, I greatly welcome the active involvement in the consortia of four local authorities—Camden, Lambeth, Westminster and the City of London corporation. It is encouraging that the services offered by specialist care providers are being integrated with the street-level work being funded under the rough sleepers initiative.

Partnerships between local authorities to meet a particular problem are not novel. They happen all over the country and there is no reason why there should not have been such a partnership to continue the work of Lawrie Park road hostel.

There are already encouraging signs that the co-ordinated approach of the rough sleepers initiative is producing real benefits. For instance, in several of the consortia the local authority housing department has offered some of its own housing stock or its nomination rights into housing association properties for the benefit of all rough sleepers in central London.

The key to the success of the consortia is the additional resources from member organisations. Central Government input is, therefore, just one element of the resources on offer. In addition, the voluntary agencies in central London are running a consortium in a sixth zone—in the Paddington/Marylebone area—without any targeted resources from us. It is a splendid example of how organisations can co-operate to maximise the impact of the resources available.

I hope that agencies outside central London will use the rough sleepers initiative as a model of how to co-ordinate the input of all voluntary and statutory bodies and local authorities involved in helping single people who are sleeping rough or who are in immediate danger of doing so. A consortium of south-east London agencies might have highlighted the issue of the Lawrie Park road hostel earlier and have been better able to focus attention on the need for local authorities to inject modest cash sums to keep the project afloat.

I trust that the South London Family Housing Association will manage the phasing out of the Lawrie Park road hostel professionally—that is, unless the boroughs concerned are not prepared to come forward even at this last moment and work in partnership to protect and take the hostel forward. If they do not do that, I am sure that the South London Family Housing Association will want to assist those people still living there to find alternative accommodation before the hostel closes. Clearly, Lawrie Park road is not the only hostel catering specifically for young people in that part of the capital.

It is clear that the rough sleepers initiative is continuing to make a significant impact on the issue of people sleeping rough in central London. By March 1996, around 5,000 places will have been provided in a variety of permanent and temporary accommodation solutions and thousands of people who would otherwise have slept rough will have been helped to find a new home. The number of people sleeping rough in the very heart of our capital city continues to decline and we are funding considerable outreach and resettlement effort to assist those who remain to start a more settled life away from the streets.

I am confident that the consortia of voluntary and statutory agencies established under the rough sleepers initiative, along with local authorities, will provide the basis of a structure that will continue to direct help to single homeless people in central London for many years to come. I hope that local authorities in other parts of the country will look at what we have achieved by working together in central London and that voluntary and statutory agencies will work together in south-east London, as in other parts of the country, to meet the needs of all homeless people, whether they be young single people or—